^I need to check out a couple of things but, meanwhile: first, my generation was taught that mathematical proofs represent the height of intellectual elegance and, secondly, "order" cannot be balanced by chaos because they are not opposite equivalents. Moreover, I thought that Einstein's main point was that the universe is ordered and subject to demonstrable rules.
Yes, but to "describe these truths" is a cumbersome task.
Again, some context would help. For instance, was this statement from Einstein in response to the question: "So Albert, how do you go about putting these complex theories into terms the layman can understand?"
I am more a turf man myself so the balance that I am primarily interested in is that between jockey and horse. On a mundane level, for us on the earth, we seek balance and harmony (which might, in men's dressing, involve contrast or a tiny disarray, to set it off) as evidence of beauty and elegance and we hope that they are, combined, evidence of Truth and that the Truth that we perceive is, therefore, desirable and good. However, the Einstein quote came out in the context of criticism and responsive snark!
"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
Albert Einstein -
on being reproached that his formula of gravitation was longer and more cumbersome than Newton’s.
Quoted in J. H. Mitchell, Writing for Professional and Technical Journals (1968), Introduction.
He also said other things about scientific 'Truth' which, in a nutshell, made it clear that it has nothingto do with elegance or beauty or human appreciation of balance. if we need to go down that route, I have someof the things that he said to hand - but I am not the greatest scientist around here - unless it has to do with configuration of either kind of filly.I could get a double-first on those. Not that it has ever done me very nmuch good
AHA!! So I was right after all... Thanks for digging for the context to lend credence to my interpretation Gilbert.
...and I was damn close on even placing it in the correct context.
Well if you're a betting man you should understand ratios
0:1
Bop, with respect, I think that you are conflating "disorder" with "chaos". Order and disorder are linked because, as you imply, order can be resolved from disorder but not necessarily from chaos. This is because ordered things must relate to the same universe of possibilities of things that are disordered; whereas chaos can comprise just any old things jumbled up and flung about. For example, a man might have a wardrobe (closet) comprising several complete outfits that a man of taste and discretion might consider to be orderly outfits. If he dresses in a disordered way from amongst the possibilities at his disposal, it can be set right. Jeeves willresolve it all. Trust me. If, on the other hand, a man just goes out and puts together an ill-conceived outfit from various shops -say (reductio ad absurdum): a black silk topper, sneakers, a Crompie-style bespoke bomber jacket, a pair of Will's excellent chamois gloves and a tuttu from a ballet shop (without owning any of the possibilities that would set him straight), he will be in a state of irredeemable, sartorial chaos. Therefore, on a sartorial level, there is a big difference between disorder and chaos.
I have to say that Einstein is not one of my personal, sartorial heroes. he would not have cut the mustard at Goodwood
Last edited by Gilbert the Filbert (2014-11-06 14:57:53)
I think you miss my point all things are chaos and orders can be drawn. Disorder would be an order disordered, but in my view chaos would be all orders at once. But then chaos could also be order breaking down..im still to ponder on that one, I still think that could be disorder.
Best way to think of chaos is static..
Im going to take another fish oil tablet and have a think..this may very well be a two tablet problem.
Last edited by Gilbert the Filbert (2014-11-06 15:19:52)
Yes. Let's have it. In matters of truth, just get to it, man. Well, in most matters, for that matter. Even ancient madders...
Last edited by Gilbert the Filbert (2014-11-06 17:04:15)
I interpret that as meaning that people prone to cloaking their point in superfluous grandiloquence only to display the extent of their knowledge in attempts to woo their audience, are merely showing off.
Last edited by Gilbert the Filbert (2014-11-06 17:20:43)