3 ms·

I totally disagree that we are predicting more stuff with fewer equations. The list of equations we have have exponentially grown since the start of the 20th C

by enkid 6y ago

I totally disagree that we are predicting more stuff with fewer equations. The list of equations we have have exponentially grown since the start of the 20th Century.

ravi-delia 6y ago
Has it? I'd contest that it's grown at all, let alone exponentially. How would that work? I guess there's an argument to be made that equations beget equations, but it's hard to think of evidence of that. Gas equations are emergent from statistical mechanics are emergent from quantum mechanics, Optics are emergent from quantum mechanics, gravitation is emergent from relativity. Now sure, relativity is a good deal more complicated than Newtonian mechanics, but saying it makes better predictions does it a disservice. It explains all the normal stuff, and also a bunch of weird stuff, while still being pretty simple and IMO way more elegant than what came before.
- enkid 6y ago
  Its not like we get rid of the old equations. We still have the Newtonian equations, in addition to special/general relativity. We still have Maxwell's equations in addition to quantum mechanics. They are useful in different situations, but they are still useful.
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    Ohh OK, I see what you're saying. I more meant to say that the smallest possible set of equations from which the rest could be derived is shrinking.
  - ssivark 6y ago
    The “more fundamental” equations replace the “less fundamental” ones, which can then be derived as approximations or limiting cases valid in restricted regimes (Eg: Newton’s laws of motion + gravitation from the weak field approximation of General Relativity + the low speeds regime).
    - enkid 6y ago
      Which one is more complicated, Newton's equations or Einstein's?
      - ravi-delia 6y ago
        It comes down to asthetic preference, but honestly the elegance of Einstein's equations really appeal to me. Newton's feel somewhat abrupt, Einstein justifies why God chose those in particular.

by enkid 6y ago

I totally disagree that we are predicting more stuff with fewer equations. The list of equations we have have exponentially grown since the start of the 20th Century.

ravi-delia 6y ago

Has it? I'd contest that it's grown at all, let alone exponentially. How would that work? I guess there's an argument to be made that equations beget equations, but it's hard to think of evidence of that. Gas equations are emergent from statistical mechanics are emergent from quantum mechanics, Optics are emergent from quantum mechanics, gravitation is emergent from relativity. Now sure, relativity is a good deal more complicated than Newtonian mechanics, but saying it makes better predictions does it a disservice. It explains all the normal stuff, and also a bunch of weird stuff, while still being pretty simple and IMO way more elegant than what came before.

enkid 6y ago
Its not like we get rid of the old equations. We still have the Newtonian equations, in addition to special/general relativity. We still have Maxwell's equations in addition to quantum mechanics. They are useful in different situations, but they are still useful.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  Ohh OK, I see what you're saying. I more meant to say that the smallest possible set of equations from which the rest could be derived is shrinking.
- ssivark 6y ago
  The “more fundamental” equations replace the “less fundamental” ones, which can then be derived as approximations or limiting cases valid in restricted regimes (Eg: Newton’s laws of motion + gravitation from the weak field approximation of General Relativity + the low speeds regime).
  - enkid 6y ago
    Which one is more complicated, Newton's equations or Einstein's?
    - ravi-delia 6y ago
      It comes down to asthetic preference, but honestly the elegance of Einstein's equations really appeal to me. Newton's feel somewhat abrupt, Einstein justifies why God chose those in particular.