Truth and simplicity are easy to maintain

First of all, the truth is simply reality, what exists. Secondly, truth is the conformity of the mind to reality, seeing reality for what it is. To live in reality requires virtue, living according to the reality of our human nature. To understand truth requires study and mental discipline. The simplest way to know the truth is to study Judeo- Christian teaching about what God has revealed to us about the truth, which interestingly is in conformity with the wisest Greek philosophers.

Truth and simplicity, both are very much related and intertwined with each other. Both supplement and add importance to each other. Truth is all about inner validity of whatever is presented before us, our soul doesn't respond in a diplomat way to whatever comes before us, such truth and simple forecasts of and about our understanding is what soul and life searches for.

Considering such a fabric relationship that truth shares with simplicity, truth can never suppress simplicity. It's in fact the search for the most inevitable and final trueness of phenomenon and matters. But sometimes I find humans intriguing as a species. We’ve invented words, actions and sounds in general and assigned meaning to them. However, not everyone speaking a word says it with the same intention.

Although we say we ought to speak our mind always but how many of us actually do it? We wear masks and we flaunt it too, we lead double lives and strike a balance between both fake personalities. The act goes on, a facade is intricately constructed and obscuring veils are nailed to our foreheads.

And in this sea of people, when someone tries to interpret his fellow human’s thoughts, words and actions, he fails hopelessly. The analysis is biased, the reasoning is skewed and the interpretation is subject to the projection of his own inner self. How can anyone then hope to ever learn the truth? How can anyone believe that it’s simple to decode life and thereby unravel the truth?

The view that simplicity is a virtue in scientific theories and that, other things being equal, simpler theories should be preferred to more complex ones has been widely advocated in the history of science and philosophy, and it remains widely held by modern scientists and philosophers of science. The claim is that simplicity ought to be one of the key criteria for evaluating and choosing between rival theories, alongside criteria such as consistency with the data and coherence with accepted background theories.

Simplicity, in this sense, is often understood ontologically, in terms of how simple a theory represents nature as being—for example, a theory might be said to be simpler than another if it posits the existence of fewer entities, causes, or processes in nature in order to account for the empirical data. However, simplicity can also been understood in terms of various features of how theories go about explaining nature—for example, a theory might be said to be simpler than another if it contains fewer adjustable parameters, if it invokes fewer extraneous assumptions, or if it provides a more unified explanation of the data.

Of course the preferences for simpler theories are widely thought to have played a central role in many important episodes in the history of science. Simplicity considerations are also regarded as integral to many of the standard methods that scientists use for inferring hypotheses from empirical data, the most of common illustration of this being the practice of curve-fitting. Indeed, some philosophers have argued that a systematic bias towards simpler theories and hypotheses is a fundamental component of inductive reasoning quite generally.

However, though the legitimacy of choosing between rival scientific theories on grounds of simplicity is frequently taken for granted, or viewed as self-evident, this practice raises a number of very difficult philosophical problems. A common concern is that notions of simplicity appear vague, and judgments about the relative simplicity of particular theories appear irredeemably subjective.

And thus, one problem is to explain more precisely what it is for theories to be simpler than others and how, if at all, the relative simplicity of theories can be objectively measured. In addition, even if we can get clearer about what simplicity is and how it is to be measured, there remains the problem of explaining what justification, if any, can be provided for choosing between rival scientific theories on grounds of simplicity. For instance, do we have any reason for thinking that simpler theories are more likely to be true?

And in this world of unicorns the “Truth” is simple. In the world where people like to look amazing and pretend what they are not and what they can't be. Truth looks like diabetic. Yeah! Just opposite to the saying that “truth is bitter”. These days truth is not easily digestible because people like the covering more than the reality which is simple. And that's the reason most people doesn't like simplicity. Perhaps that's why truth resists simplicity.

But there are versions of truth. There are some truths that are hidden in plain sight and some which are expertly disguised as fiction or lies. The truth in most cases may never stand the test of time. What was considered as a fact until yesterday, will be a faint memory tomorrow. The truth evolves as societies do, changing its form along with the political, social and economical landscape of a country. The truth acts like a mirror when you thought it’d act like a window. It takes time, effort, patience to uncover the most basic of truths. And you thought it’d be easy? It’d be simple? Truth resists simplicity. Cheers!