Topics Science

Question One of the guiding principles of experimental science is the assumption that it's (and I'm stating it bluntly) preferable to have less "explanation" to more "problem". This seems to imply that science prefers its description of the universe to be simple, which makes economic sense. But isn't a general description that "the universe is infinitely complex" simpler than a general description that "the universe is simple", since infinity is simpler to define than any specific "finity" (of which there may be infinitely many)? This would seem to be rather self-defeating.

Accepted:
November 14, 2005

Comments

Scientists do seem to have a strong preference for simple theories, though the relevant concepts of simplicity are not at all easy to analyze. It is also very difficult fully to justify a simplicity preference, since scientists seem to prefer simpler hypotheses because they think them more likely to be correct, not just because they are more economical, and it is hard to see how we could justify the claim that the universe is more likely to simple without begging the question.

But I don't think that a claim that assigns an infinite quantity is automatically simpler than one that assigns a finite quality. 'There are infinitely many rocks' mayh not be relevantly simpler than 'There are 437 rocks.' Of course there many more claims assigning specific finite numbers of rocks than there are claims assigning an infinite number of rocks (infinitely many more, in fact), but I think the relevant comparison is between specific claims.