zlacker

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Simplicity comes from strong definitions, and "infinite" complexity comes from weak ones.

If you're always chasing the next technicality then maybe you didn't really know what question you were looking to answer at the onset.

>>jkling+(OP)
IMO both perspectives have their place. Sometimes what's missing is the information, sometimes what's lacking is the ability to communicate it and/or the willingness to understand it. So in different circumstances either viewpoint may be appropriate.

What's missing more often than not, across fields of study as well as levels of education, is the overall commitment to conceputal integrity. From this we observe people's habitual inability or unwillingness to be definite about what their words mean - and their consequent fear of abstraction.

If one is in the habit of using one's set of concepts in the manner of bludgeons, one will find many ways and many reasons to bludgeon another with them - such as if a person turned out to be using concepts as something more akin to clockwork.

>>jkling+(OP)
>If you're always chasing the next technicality

This sounds like someone who has never studied physics.

"Oh wow, I figured out everything about physics... except this one little weird thing here"

[A lifetime of chasing why that one little weird thing occurs]

"I know nothing about physics, I am but a mote in an endless void"

---

Strong or weak definitions don't save you here, what you are looking for is error bars and acceptable ranges.

>>jkling+(OP)
This is actually insightful: we usually don't know the question we are trying to answer. The idea that you can "just" find the right question is naive.

>>pixl97+i5
Your response along with others is proving my point in an unfortunate way.

If you think I'm saying that the world is not infinitely complex, you are missing the point.

>>jkling+(OP)
> Simplicity comes from strong definitions

Sure, you can put it this way, with the caveat that reality at large isn't strongly definable.

You can sort of see this with good engineering: half of it is strongly defining a system simple enough to be reasoned about and built up, the other half is making damn sure that the rest of reality can't intrude, violate your assumptions and ruin it all.

>>jkling+(OP)
Simple counterexample: chess. The rules are simple enough we regularly teach them to young children. There's basically no randomness involved. And yet, the rules taken together form a game complex enough that no human alive can fully comprehend their consequences.

>>balama+l3
Yes, we're in complete agreement about conceptual integrity.

Reality is such that, without integrity, you can prove almost anything you want. As long as your bar for "prove" is at the very bottom.