Man Under Materialism

And you see nothing profoundly silly in that sentence fm?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not even agree that the latter is "simpler" nor any "less involved" than the former.

In fact, one of the problems I have with the used of Occum's Razor is that an objective decision about which of alternatives is less complex has to be made...and, as you did here, the decision is often self-serving toward the bias of the person making the decision.

I shouldn't have used the word "simple" in my definition. The Razor is more succinctly effective as "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.". Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" is probably closer to the original.

The point being that it's not "simplicity" which is being evaluated by the Razor, it's the number of assumptions or "entities".

Also, the example of a desk being solid or empty space doesn't apply because the Razor is only used to break a tie between two theories which propose exactly the same result, not two completely different results. Theories which propose different results are verifiable by tests other than the Razor.

Bottom line, Ros...is that Occum's Razor does not decide which of competing possibilities IS the correct answer.

I'm not really going to go further into this...Occum's Razor has been shown to be not especially valuable by much more learned individuals than I.

If you like it...use it. If you use it on me...I will simply indicate that I don't see it being valuable to decide what we are arguing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bottom line, Ros...is that Occum's Razor does not decide which of competing possibilities IS the correct answer.

Of course not, it's a probability test, not a possibility test.

That's complete bullshit, but if you've convinced yourself already that's fine. I don't want to make you think about something if you're not interested in thinking about it.

That's because the very quotes that the Cretinists take from scientists are usually doctored, or are merely argument introductory phrases where a topic is introduced as a negative phrase.

Right. So tell me...what is the probability that a GOD exists...versus the probability that there are no gods? Using Occum's Razor, of course.

Those two choices aren't hypotheses which make predictions so the Razor doesn't technically apply.

For the Razor to apply you would have to rephrase the question as "is it more likely that a God was necessary to create the Universe or that no God was necessary to create the Universe?"

And in that case, between two competing hypothesis with identical predictions the Razor says that the one with the fewest entities or assumptions is the better one. So by the Razor, the one with no Gods is more likely. The Razor doesn't tell us how much more likely or if the answer is correct, it only breaks the tie by virtue of the Razor.

As a more extreme example, if another hypothesis were introduced in which One God had to be created by another God which had to be created by another God until it was Ten Gods deep, then the hypothesis with the fewest entities is the best one. So the Razor would select One God over Ten Gods just as it selects Zero Gods over One God.

Not interested in this.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Not interested in this.

Me either. By the way you have a nice back yard. Although I'm not certain because I've never really seen it. And even if I did see it I guess I couldn't be absolutely certain because if there is a God it could have just made me think I saw a back yard which really wasn't there. The simplest solution of course is that you really do have a nice back yard, but I guess I can't rely on that because simple solutions aren't guaranteed to be correct or philosophically valid. So please allow me to obtusely imply that you might possibly have the potential for a nice back yard while still fervently assuring you that I'm fully aware that I don't know anything for certain.