I think the history of physics does not support this view. New theories that explain a wider range of phenomena tend to be harder to understand than their prede

I think the history of physics does not support this view. New theories that explain a wider range of phenomena tend to be harder to understand than their predecessors that explain a narrower range of observations. For example, Newtonian mechanics is simpler than relativistic mechanics which is simpler than quantum field theories. Also, I see nothing that would make fundamental aspects of nature comprehensible for humans. Our cognition evolved to handle classical mechanics without the relativistic or quantum effects that we find bizarre and indeed classical mechanics is roughly where average person's understanding of nature ends. An alternative view is that there is a survivorship bias at play: we tend to understand the things about the universe that are simple enough for a human mind and remain oblivious to the ones that are too complicated for it.