>>11436373You would guess wrong, that response is stupid enough that it's like an 80% chance it's bait.
>>11436305What you interpret as complexity is simply a lack of intuitiveness. Whether or not something is intuitive to you is not necessarily correlate with accuracy in general, it _does_ correlate with accuracy for the domain in which your intuition developed, i.e. our macroscopic, medium energy experience.
For a very simple example, consider the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. Modeling the motion of the sun, planets, and stars become far simpler when you actually try and rigorously describe them, but it might be less intuitive, as the sun appears to orbit the earth in everyday experience.
I assure you that physicists are plenty more concerned than you are with making their models simpler. If you actually attempt to describe the world accurately using more "intuitive" methods you quickly find that many concepts we think of as "simple" can be extremely difficult to rigorously describe if you try and break them down. In contrast things that our minds might be less suited to, and we find more "complex" like mathematics, are comparatively quite simple from the standpoint of rigor.
