In Search of Elegance

What is elegance and why is it important that our ideas have it? Elegance is a combination of utter simplicity and undeniable efficacy. An elegant idea is one that creates the fewest number of assumptions, is driven by a simple mechanism, works in every instance you apply it to, and makes accurate predictions that were not apparent before. The theory of evolution through natural selection is an elegant idea; the only assumption it begins with is that resources are limited, the mechanism that drives it is the competition between genes, and the truth of its history and future is undeniable. Our ideas must be elegant because if one contains too many assumptions or is driven by too complex of a mechanism, it probably also lacks efficacy and is not a good way to describe the phenomenon it was created to describe.



In the field of mathematics, Mandelbrot’s fractal equations provide a good model for how elegant ideas manifest themselves in the real world. If you’ve ever seen a piece of fractal art, it is a wonder of infinite complexity; the closer you look at every curve and crest, infinitely more detail is revealed. When you step back far enough, the larger picture that you see often resembles the minute section you were just observing. But the mechanism that created this wonderfully detailed and visually stunning piece is but a simple, self-referencing algebraic equation. Every line and curve within it was drawn by the same instruction. So it goes with reality’s driving laws; Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is but a set of equations, but in their simplicity, they have perfectly predicted the behavior of the universe’s forces before we even had the ability to measure them.

It is with elegance in mind that we look for solutions to the current questions. The one that summons the most debate is that of the creation of the universe. To say that a deity created everything is not an elegant solution; it creates too many assumptions, including that of an infinitely complex mechanism believed to be a sentient creator’s will. Such an idea is a curiosity blocker; it answers the question without much insight and acts to preclude any further questions. One should ask of a theist, “Do you propose that we stop trying to figure this out if that’s the answer to believe?”

Scientific observation began with things that were apparent to our eyes. It eventually progressed to the microscopic world that can be seen through a series of simple lenses. The electron microscope followed, and now we’re discovering the particles that make up the particles that make up the particles… each level elegantly described by simple ideas. Is there any reason to believe there is an end to it? Curiosity blockers have no place in the discussion of ideas until elegance has its final say. The questions deserve to be answered with the best effort we can give them.