I often feel that we tend to create overly complicated reasoning. I have even heard people say that complex or highly complex situations—or unintelligible or problematic events—often have explanations that are nearly incomprehensible. It seems they cannot possibly have simple explanations. If they had simple explanations, things would be simple.
I completely disagree with that claim. If a complex situation has a complex explanation, I don’t need that explanation. I am already left with the complex situation itself. A complicated explanation does nothing to help me in my life. The skill of someone who truly understands the cause-and-effect relationships behind things lies precisely in being able to give simple explanations for complex matters. But that is a skill only intelligent people possess.
Reality is usually complex in the sense that it is shaped by a multitude of interrelated variables. If one can identify the two or three variables that most strongly explain what is happening, then one can offer a simple explanation of the phenomenon. Complexity is complex. In order to understand it, we must simplify it—not make it even more complicated.
People who can highlight the causal relationships within a complex phenomenon are able to provide simple explanations because they understand its underlying structure. This allows them to synthesize knowledge and communicate it clearly, omitting unnecessary details. These individuals dismantle complexity and focus solely on the information essential for comprehension.
This skill is achieved by going beyond the details; instead of listing every component of a system, the expert identifies the critical factors that truly drive the outcomes. They break down the complexity to reveal the few variables that make the biggest difference. Often, they rely on comparisons to ideas the audience already understands, creating a mental shortcut.
The scientist Albert Einstein is frequently associated with this idea, captured in his famous quote: “If you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
It is like the physician who deeply understands human physiology and can explain the cause of a patient’s illness in simple terms, without overwhelming them with technical jargon. Instead of describing every biological process, Zum Beispiel, the doctor might say: “Your high blood pressure is like a garden hose with too much pressure. The walls of your blood vessels are under strain, which can cause damage.”
In this month’s scientific article, DR. Greyson offers yet another example of providing a simple explanation for a complex situation. Greyson developed an explanatory model considering factors such as lack of oxygen to the brain, Medikamente, or anesthesia—yet noted that certain near-death experiences (NTEs) included observations that corresponded to real events while the individual was clinically dead. He then created a scale that included 16 criteria to determine whether a person had truly experienced an NDE under conditions that posed a severe threat to their health.
Both Greyson and Pehlivanova accept that, whatever these experiences may be, they permanently change the lives of those who undergo them. Another matter altogether is the discussion of non-local consciousness developed by Dr. Pim van Lommel. Two great and courageous scientists of our era who, in the face of NDE evidence, offer simple explanations for complex phenomena.
Xavier Melo PhD
Gründungsdirektor
Icloby-Stiftung