Abstract
Will an "ultimate theory" giving us an understanding of the nature of reality be simple? So far nothing has been simple. While general relativity's equivalence of gravitation and acceleration is easily understood the resulting field equations are extremely complicated. Richard Feynman used simple arrow diagrams as a basis for QED that required decades of work in path integrals to refine. It seems to be a tacit assumption that any new discovery in theoretical physics will be followed by a complex solution. Even the path of reductionism leads to quarks sometimes thought to be composed of irreducible strings, ironically landing on some of the most intricate mathematics of all in string theory. It is easy to see how this mindset would be difficult to escape. I show how the assumption that a solution should be complex may underestimate the possibility of a simple solution - even one devoid of mathematics or formulas.
peter bauch