
Simplicity (2016) - peter_d_sherman
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
======
rumcajz
Everybody agrees that simplicity is good. So more interesting question is: Is
there anything desirable in complexity?

One argument that I've got from biology is: The simplest possible system
(code, living organism) is fragile. Any change, however minor, is likely to
break it. A nice chubby complex system, on the other hand, is likely to be
more resilient. You may change it a bit and it's still likely to work somehow.

~~~
plainOldText
> A nice chubby complex system, on the other hand, is likely to be more
> resilient.

You should take a look at tardigrades then (aka water bears), which are
approx. 1mm in length, obviously less complex than most living creatures, yet
are some of the most resilient animals on earth; highly resistant to extreme
temperatures, pressure, radiation, etc.

One way to look at resilience: a relationship between the system and its
environment. So when you say resilient, you need to specify, resilient to
what? I think a resilient system, is neither too complex, nor too simple, but
rather, adapted to its environment.

~~~
hnarn
Complexity only gives you resilience in the same way monkeys write
Shakespeare. So, while not technically wrong, I wouldn't say it holds water.
The old adage of "security through obscurity" comes to mind.

~~~
phorkyas82
That's not complexity but entropy. In terms of entropy you could better
Shakespeare by using only one sentence, word or letter for the whole play. As
a boy I inhaled the spirit of Mitchell M. Waldrop "Complexity: The Emerging
Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" that for some time it was my life
dream, maybe still is, to perform some work connected to said institute. I'd
say it like that: The amount of features you need to sufficiently (in your
metric) model a given system defines its complexity. - Something for which a
rigid body is enough: probably not so interesting. Autocatalytical
reactions?... Something biochemical maybe more.

------
anonytrary
There will be a never-ending pressure to simplify theories, codebases and
anything some other human has done with too many words and too many numbers.
By doing so successfully, you make life permanently easier for everyone who
comes after you.

------
sanatgersappa
A big page full of complicated words to explain Simplicity. The irony.

------
pmoriarty
Whenever people link to this website, I feel compelled to point out that it
should really be called the Stanford Encyclopedia of Analytic Philosophy, lest
lay people be misled that _all_ philosophy is like this or shares their
concerns.

~~~
geoalchimista
I am a layman. Whenever I see the divide between _analytic philosophy_ and
_continental philosophy_ I find it funny, since there is no _continental
physics_ or _continental chemistry_.

~~~
woodruffw
I think this comes from a misunderstanding of what philosophy is. Philosophy
is not a science, and can never become one without threatening its current
epistemic/ontological role -- objects like falsification, Quine's "best
science", proof by contradiction, and argumentation from necessity exist as a
_substrate_ for scientific reasoning, and so repositioning them as objects of
the science they support would involve circular reasoning[1].

Put another way: to "lift" philosophy into the domain of science would involve
defining/formulating the guiding principles of sound/"good" science in their
own terms.

(I was educated in the analytic tradition.)

[1]: It's worth noting that this only covers the philosophies of science and
mathematics, not things like ethics, aesthetics, existence, &c. I think we can
defend investigating the latter subjects as a consequence of science's
inability to answer normative questions -- science can only tell us what _is_
, not what _ought_ to be.

~~~
claudiawerner
>Philosophy is not a science, and can never become one without threatening its
current epistemic/ontological role

It's worth noting that there are some who disagree and have some good
arguments in support of that[0], and that philosophy as _Wissenschaft_ was
prevalent until relatively recently. To me, the continental/analytic
distinction is a distinction in the methods of inquiry, if it is a valid
distinction at all.

[0] [http://www.philosophyisscience.com/](http://www.philosophyisscience.com/)

~~~
woodruffw
Great points. I guess I should have said that I'm using "science" with a 20th
century tinge and from the perspective of analytic thinkers of that period. In
that context, I think I'd agree with a description of science as a strict
subset of epistemology, specifically the branch of epistemology that dedicates
itself to picking out things in the physical world.

Per your link: I wonder what the author of that page thinks of the Gettier
problems and whether they constitute "false knowledge."

