PDA

View Full Version : Was Einstein confusing us with one of his quotes?



WhiteLove
3rd May 2015, 14:22
One of Einstein's famous quotes was "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler".

I have thought about the meaning of this quote, its relation to Occam's Razor and lately I've been more and more convinced that in practice a different quote might work even better: "Everything Should Not Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Even Simpler", in other words what I'm saying is that over-simplification might actually work better than doing things as simple as possible.

The reason why over-simplification might work very well is because it makes certain outcomes totally impossible, so you win time, money and energy partly from not having to manage those scenarios before you take action and partly because you do not have to deal with the potential negative outcomes that might morph into the result as a result of making the complications possible to happen.

An example of this would be the process of buying a house. In a bidding process that house could end up costly. The most simple strategy here would be to simply just place 1 bid on that house that reflects what you think the house is worth and then stick to that. Although this could work well for you, at the same time you are now actually placing a bid which is already to some degree adjusted to be relative to a price evaluation that exists in a bidding context, because to some degree your bid will reflect how much you want the house relative to what the market expected price increase will be during bidding. Now, an over-simplified strategy would be to not bid at all, this might mean you miss a great opportunity, but on the other hand you now know that when you buy a house you won't be a victim of a poorly placed bid, because since you don't make any bids it's impossible.

Another good thing about over-simplification is that it makes you aware of landscapes that are full of traps and that actually contain no good opportunities at all. Because if you simplify down your options to those that only do not have any possible issues, then if you are left with no options, then that means that whatever option you will now choose among those presented it will enable a new issue to morph into your reality. If you go this route you will automatically not look for and create an opportunity that is what you are looking for, hence what could have turned out great now turns into a compromise caused by a distraction.

The downside of over-simplification can be a slower process forward. Since you limit your options more you have to work harder with creating options that are not instantly available to you and when that fails you can actually end up in a more complicated spot and this might trigger quickly if you have little available time to create those options. Therefore an even better quote might be: "Everything should not be made as simple as possible, but even simpler and when that turns out to be impossible, then make it as simple as possible."

These are some of my thoughts. How are you approaching this?

araucaria
3rd May 2015, 14:42
What do I think? You must be living in rented accommodation :)

sirdipswitch
3rd May 2015, 20:38
I operate from Kala: the Second Principal of Huna, which says that... "anything is possible"
.... "if you can figure out how to do it."

Octavusprime
3rd May 2015, 20:44
Whitelove, I think you're over complicating the message. :P

For me the quote is saying: When presented with any decision or problem do only as much as is needed to get the needed result.

Example:

If I need to get from point A to point B and it is 30 miles away I could do it a few ways. I could hire a helicopter, get picked up and then repel down to point B. (overcomplicated) I could walk. (Overly simplified) I could get in my car and drive. (just the right amount of simplification)

WhiteLove
3rd May 2015, 21:24
Whitelove, I think you're over complicating the message. :P

For me the quote is saying: When presented with any decision or problem do only as much as is needed to get the needed result.

Example:

If I need to get from point A to point B and it is 30 miles away I could do it a few ways. I could hire a helicopter, get picked up and then repel down to point B. (overcomplicated) I could walk. (Overly simplified) I could get in my car and drive. (just the right amount of simplification)

That makes sense. I think it is that part "as simple as possible >>but not simpler<<" that confuses me a lot, because to me that kind of means "as simple as what is possible, if it becomes more simple than what is possible, then that is not optimal". But I'm not sure what he tries to say with that part. "When presented with any decision or problem do only as much as is needed to get the needed result." is to me easier to understand the meaning of and maybe that is what he really is trying to say - but in a complicated way. :confused:

Carmody
4th May 2015, 00:20
the thing about science, is that .....in order to get relativity to work, the had decided to chop off both ends of Maxwell's and Faraday's works.

so..when they curve fit the resulting math, it could be fitted into the reality.

People forgot that due to the impossibility of correctly doing the full mathematics and to not confront the full complications, Einstein curve fit Maxwell's works, as did the people before him in their mathematical woks... and as did his contemporaries.

This gave us the equivalency of mass required for light-speed being reached. It also gave us the limit of light-speed for the universe. Few recall or understand that it was all simplicity and curve fitting.

They never read Einstein's original missives on how he came up with the data and do not know that pieces of the original math are MISSING. which is why it limits at light-speed, and does not describe the more complex situations we now know to exist.

Relativity was and is useful, but for the full descriptive of known phenomena, we have to go back and put in the missing bits.

And, to get rid of Thermodynamics, as thermodynamics was explicitly formulated to EXCLUDE any form of over-unity or perpetual motion.

Right from the get go, that was it's genesis component, in intention and design. That's why it is expressed as a LAW, not a theory. It was designed to be dogma and punishment for violation, right from the start. They don't want you to go there and find over-unity. I'm 100% serious here, I'm not ****ting you one iota.

People don't know that as they have not read the original literature on the creation of thermodynamics as math. They don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Patrikas
4th May 2015, 00:59
I definately agree with the title op with the title of this thread but perhaps for diffrent reasons... einstein was used or agreed to deliberately steer the general masses away from the the real truth and therefore took overunity or anything that outputs more than the input .
Below is video by Eric Dollard which proves beyond doubt that the Einstinean thoery is wrong ......one is a long lecture called theory of anti relativity .and the other is quite new and involves Eric in his latest project which involves a system for early earthquake detection using Teslas telluric (through the ground transmission) using Am radio freq......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuMICiFqmE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYPx6X2zltg

johnh
4th May 2015, 02:36
I wouldn't dare approach this. Way too complicated for me.

CD7
4th May 2015, 04:19
Work Smarter Not harder! Everything here was designed to be simple....takes brains/heart to put it in Play :D

Davidallany
4th May 2015, 04:52
the thing about science, is that .....in order to get relativity to work, the had decided to chop off both ends of Maxwell's and Faraday's works.

so..when they curve fit the resulting math, it could be fitted into the reality.

People forgot that due to the impossibility of correctly doing the full mathematics and to not confront the full complications, Einstein curve fit Maxwell's works, as did the people before him in their mathematical woks... and as did his contemporaries.

This gave us the equivalency of mass required for light-speed being reached. It also gave us the limit of light-speed for the universe. Few recall or understand that it was all simplicity and curve fitting.

They never read Einstein's original missives on how he came up with the data and do not know that pieces of the original math are MISSING. which is why it limits at light-speed, and does not describe the more complex situations we now know to exist.

Relativity was and is useful, but for the full descriptive of known phenomena, we have to go back and put in the missing bits.

And, to get rid of Thermodynamics, as thermodynamics was explicitly formulated to EXCLUDE any form of over-unity or perpetual motion.

Right from the get go, that was it's genesis component, in intention and design. That's why it is expressed as a LAW, not a theory. It was designed to be dogma and punishment for violation, right from the start. They don't want you to go there and find over-unity. I'm 100% serious here, I'm not ****ting you one iota.

People don't know that as they have not read the original literature on the creation of thermodynamics as math. They don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Energy of entertained thoughts help make holographic things real, for good or bad. Magicians, high lamas and high Masons use this fact all the time to change things as they desire and break physics laws. Everything has been pointing out to this including Hollywood albeit a bit blur.
H4o97PEXzBA

Mike Gorman
4th May 2015, 05:16
Yes, I agree with Octavusprime - you are performing too many circumlocutions and drilling in barren ground. The quote is merely a statement that suggests you must accord the right degree simplicity that the subject demands
Occam recognized that people tend to over embellish problems, Einstein being adept with mathematical language likewise understood this tendency to cloud matters with complexity - you have committed the same error in your
over analysis of the meaning - I am blessed with a native intuitive intelligence, and natural 'feel' for solutions, it is why I was drawn to being a technical analyst, I solve problems by being able to visualize systems and how they should work
I perform music by having a native feel for musical ratios, Platonic idealism if you like. Each issue you confront should be respected for its own nature, and dealt with with minimum stress - this is what is meant I believe, if you over simplify something you fail to understand its nature.

Morbid
4th May 2015, 10:29
as far as im concerned he was a zionist shill misdirecting development of electrodynamics which to this day we have wrong understanding of. also, he spread the myth that nothing travels faster than light - completely limiting our understanding of extraterrestrials. the only thing im glad he did is refusing position to be the first israeli president.