The Universe Is really Simple we just don't understand it

[Frantic]

Title basically summarizes this article

http://www.space.com/30783-our-universe ... ne+Feed%29

From the largest scales to the smallest scales, the universe seems to be "scale-free" -- in other words, no matter what spatial or energy scale you look at, no scale is "special." And this finding actually suggests the universe has a far simpler nature than current theories suggest.

This article has all the info necessary to deduce the problems with mainstream theory, but the best alternative they could come up with is that the big bang happens cyclically (yeah, like we've never heard that before ...) And our gravity wave detectors will get more sensitive.

At the opposite end of the scale, a similar thing happened when physicists probed into the Higgs field, using the most complex machine ever constructed by humankind, the Large Hadron Collider. When, in 2012, physicists made the historic discovery of the particle that mediates the Higgs field, the Higgs boson, it turned out to be the simplest type of Higgs described by the Standard Model of physics.

Quantum mechanics and the higgs are clearly so simple a child could understand it.

[Webbman]

it is true.

everything in the universe boils down to the charge/electric field and all matter is created from twisting "lines of force" around each other like a helix to contain charge like a vessel.

the helix (EM radiation i.e light) gives rise to the ring(electron), which gives rise to the sphere(Proton) which gives rise to the sphere with a ring around it(Neutron).

"search your feelings, you know it be true"-Darth Vader

[Scottmana]

If "simple" could be the smallest most direct way to grasp something, then "complex" would be made up of many simple parts. Something would only seem as complex as you could not see the simple parts it is made of.

[IgorTesla]

As programmer i was taught the binary language to be able to understand how a computer works internally.
At first it seemed like a very easy thing to do since binary math only consists of two digits. (zero and one)
But i soon discovered that it was actually very difficult for a human brain to work with such a model. A simple binary program that would only display my name on a computer screen was immensely time consuming and insanely complex due to the huge amounts of digits used for this simple task. As a result i was left with a huge list of zero's and one's which would be impossible to comprehend by anyone at all.
So although the binary system's building blocks are very simple (0 and 1), they are by no means easy to comprehend.

This being said, i think it's safe to say that the Universe could be really as simple as binary language but that doesn't mean it will be easy to understand the design itself.
It's like comparing a circle drawn on a paper sheet and programming a computer to draw a circle on your screen.
Drawing we can all do easily but programming it is a whole different story...

[Metryq]

It's like comparing a circle drawn on a paper sheet and programming a computer to draw a circle on your screen.

Not quite. The hand-drawn circle is "simple" only from a certain perspective. To account for that hand-drawn circle, one must also explain the creature who drew it, his intelligence and the development of paper and pencils, etc.

The relevance of the binary code is not just the ones and zeroes. The ones and zeroes (or red marbles and blue marbles—whatever one is using) could fall into a circular or fractal pattern on their own, no intelligence or intent involved. However, a code like binary can't "just happen." The code doesn't mean anything on its own; a sender and a receiver are needed. The binary code to spell one's name on a computer screen assumes knowledge of the many levels of computer software and hardware—also many steps removed from the intelligence that can read the text on the screen.

This code argument is used by some to push intelligent design. While there may be ID ("god" if one prefers that term), such a conclusion requires far more proof. We've been duped many times by the mysteries of nature. The most I'd concede about codes is that they suggest missing mechanisms in our models of the universe. Logically, information has to come from somewhere, and it is usually assumed lesser cannot beget greater. Maybe thermodynamics and entropy are flawed human viewpoints?

No, I don't believe the universe is simple. Those who seek a Grand Unified Theory may believe that, Math is Truth(TM), but that sounds like willful blindness to me.

[IgorTesla]

I'm not fond of quoting other peoples responses but in this case i feel the need to do so.

Not quite. The hand-drawn circle is "simple" only from a certain perspective. To account for that hand-drawn circle, one must also explain the creature who drew it, his intelligence and the development of paper and pencils, etc.

All i can say : Sticks and stones.
You might as well go back to Adam and Eve to explain the creature.
Almost every human can draw a circle fast and easily but almost no one can program a computer to make it draw a circle on the screen using binary language.

The relevance of the binary code is not just the ones and zeroes. The ones and zeroes (or red marbles and blue marbles—whatever one is using) could fall into a circular or fractal pattern on their own, no intelligence or intent involved. However, a code like binary can't "just happen." The code doesn't mean anything on its own; a sender and a receiver are needed. The binary code to spell one's name on a computer screen assumes knowledge of the many levels of computer software and hardware—also many steps removed from the intelligence that can read the text on the screen.

Ones and zeros do NOT fall, they represent the activation or shut down of an electrical circuit inside a computer chip. This is called programming. And it doesn't assume knowledge of software and hardware, it's required. The steps needed to realize the program does not require intelligence in essence, that all depends on what it purpose will be, in this case a circle (which requires knowledge of binary programming in this case)

This code argument is used by some to push intelligent design. While there may be ID ("god" if one prefers that term), such a conclusion requires far more proof. We've been duped many times by the mysteries of nature. The most I'd concede about codes is that they suggest missing mechanisms in our models of the universe. Logically, information has to come from somewhere, and it is usually assumed lesser cannot beget greater. Maybe thermodynamics and entropy are flawed human viewpoints?

Well, we are here, intelligently discussing ideas. We live in a habitable zone that is so perfectly suited to our needs and we are capable of exploring the universe. If only one single variable would be slightly different we could not exist at all, so i say : it is an intelligent design. Information itself can be stored in chips and DNA
Chips don't let the information be able to grow or shrink on it's own but DNA does, so we have some facts that could be used either way.

No, I don't believe the universe is simple. Those who seek a Grand Unified Theory may believe that, Math is Truth(TM), but that sounds like willful blindness to me.

The Universe ain't simple indeed and so far a Unified Theory seems to be out of the question. Math is a tool and not science so we better start using it as such.