Complexity and Truth

Here's a new aphorism that I'm still "testing the waters" on:

"The truth is kind of like computer security. You can never have it in its ideal. You can only hope to have enough complexity to earn its rewards."

In computer security (my vocation), you can never really reach the ideal of creating the perfect security system that keeps the bad guys out. Instead, the best you can do is make the system complex enough that it becomes too much trouble for the hacker to break in.

So it is with home security. Locked doors can't keep the bad guys out. They can only make it too risky for the bad guys to bother. I'm calling this riskiness complexity.

This doesn't mean that the ideal shouldn't exist. I don't think a security system (whether computer, or home) designer would be worth his/her salt if he/she didn't have the ideal to shoot for. The ideal serves a purpose as a goal. But in an imperfect world, it is rarely, dare I say never, achieved.

What are the rewards of truth that I speak of? Truth equips the "knower". To know the truth that a tornado is coming, rewards the truth-holder with the option to take cover.

I ask this question though: Does ALL truth reward?

The second thing that I'm battling with this aphorism is Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that the truth is usually the simplest explanation of an event. If such a statement is true, than how can I say that we can only hope to have enough complexity to earn truth's benefits?

Today I have demonstrated that I have more questions than I have answers.