Or can this be explained away by psychological or practical considerations?

Even references to the number 1 look extremely complex if you replace them using a formula like: Doing so would not change what’s true, but it sure would confuse a lot of people and make formulas much harder to work with.However, the basic form of his new theory still did not agree perfectly with observation, and so required some ad hoc refinements that introduced extra complexity.This further complexity was eventually removed by Kepler who refined the model yet again by allowing for elliptical rather than circular orbits, which now is known to be an excellent explanation for the orbits that are observed.Another, related reason why we might expect simplicity to win out over complexity, is because of a rule of thumb known as Occam’s Razor.This idea, in its typical modern form, states that given multiple possible explanations for a phenomena that are otherwise equally plausible, we should prefer the one that is the simplest.For example, consider the remarkable and rather minimalist “heat equation” which, when solved for the function f with a given condition on its boundary, will describe how heat would actually flow over time on a specified surface.

## You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!