The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih started this discussion 15 years ago#209
I chuckle to myself when people cite Occam's razor as a sort of solution to scientific or physical problems. They do not realize that Occam was a Medieval theologian lol.
Bill joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#3,748
You should make them look like fools when they do it!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,754
I chuckle to myself when people cite Newton's laws of motion as a sort of solution to scientific or physical problems. They do not realize that Newton was an Astrologer and Alchemist.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,761
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
"Newton's Laws of Motion" were actually not codified by Newton. He wrote down observations that tended toward them, but it was later scientists who codified them as we know then now.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,773
What about Obama's Razor?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,774
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
On what grounds? That a Medieval superstitious lawyer said so? Where is the objective, scientific evidence that simple explanations are more likely to be true? Are there not many known facts of science that have complicated explanations?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,779
@3,761 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Fine, replace "laws of motion" with "Principia Mathematica" or whatever would please you. The fact remains that even though Newton was heavily involved in junk science and unorthodox (to say the least) theology, his principles and ideas stand or fall on their own merits. The same principle applies to William of Ockham and his "Razor".
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,782
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Evolution.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,785
@3,779 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
My point is that there is no "Ockham's Razor." There is no such thing. He never claimed such. It is only a modern misinterpretation of Medieval history that has falsely created this groundless principle.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,790
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
That is not all that Evolution encompasses, though.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,793
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I understand. But my point is, on what grounds is it a tendency? Has anyone ever really done a scientific study on all arguments ever made, and concluded, in a peer-reviewed journal, that this tendency is true?
Jack the Viking !gOStA1p7Pc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,796
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,797
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
There is much more to Evolution that those three macro-facts. For example, DNA is heavily involved, and we only recently decoded it. DNA, just one small aspect of Evolution, is incredibly complicated.
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,798
I think that you two really should learn to simplify this theory. You could be missionaries for evolution.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,799
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.) > Depressionman's Razor: Any event that cannot be explained by the evidence at hand must be caused by stalkers, if there is no evidence to the contrary.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,804
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Not at all. I am arguing only that, as I understand it, Evolution is quite complex when one goes all the way to its fundamental elements.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,820
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
But how are we defining "simple" in an infinite universe? Anything could be infinitely more or less complicated than anything else.
jump !VIfloDyEYo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,821
@3,793 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Think logically. If you don't know something, and you are coming up with a hypothesis, you base it off the data you have, correct?
Now, you observe something that cannot be explained, is your answer going to be based on things that are known and observed to happen or will you wildly speculate it must be an invisible man causing the observed event (let's say, a ball rolled up an inclined surface).
You don't know the answer, but it's foolish to get into wild speculation. You should first exhaust possible known phenomena. If you start from an unfounded position that is not known to be true, when there is no evidence to suggest it other than you cannot explain, you are just making things up at that point.
Does that help you understand it more?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,825
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
God is simple. Problem is we don't quite understand Him.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,827
@3,821 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
I understand it completely, and yes, what you said seems to make sense. My original point was only that there is no such thing as Occam's Razor, historically. And yes, simpler explanations seem to be more correct. However, I just do not think that human beings, living on a speck of dust in a vast universe, with only five feeble senses, can justifiably make a sweeping generalization like that.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,829
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,830
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I will have to think about that. You may be right. But we do know, for example, that things can indeed be more complicated than their individual parts, which is what scientists call synergy. So, perhaps things can indeed be simpler than their fundamental parts.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,833
@3,829 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Do you know what an analogy is?
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,836
@3,827 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
It's just a useful way of thinking to keep you grounded. It's really only brought up when people get into wild speculation.
jump !VIfloDyEYo double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,837
@3,825 (K)
Is god simple? How do you know this? You are just saying it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,839
@3,833 (K)
Do you know what a condescending rhetorical question is?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,841
@3,836 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
I understand completely. But, my beef is against the use of it generally, since it was never really formed. But yes, I understand the principle.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,851
@3,797 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Evolution, as least as we conceive of it today, is only similar to evolutionary theory of Darwin's time in the overarching ideas and broad strokes. From classifying organisms along lines of genetic similarity rather than physical attributes to arguments about gradualism versus punctuated equilibria, the fine details have been debated and have changed to meet the evidence. The collection of assumptions that make up what we now refer to as "evolutionary theory" is the result of hundreds of years of "hole poking" and correction.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,853
@previous (L)
Yes, I understand that. I am saying that, the thing that we today call "evolution," is a complex thing, not a simple thing.
Jack the Viking !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,859
There is no such thing as magic or the supernatural. The universe follows strict mathematical laws.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,862
@3,853 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
You really do not understand, though you say you do.
Given the observed evidence, evolution is the simplest explanation, though the mechanisms by which it work are complex.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,863
@3,853 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Yes, and when you begin looking at the fundamental elements you see that they have been subjected to debate and countless people trying to poke holes in them. Yes, it is a complex collection of ideas, but that complex explanation didn't spring from nothing fully formed. Each element has been examined and refined over the years.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,870
@previous (L)
Again, this may indeed be true. All I am saying, however, is that Evolution is an example where a relatively complex explanation seems to be the right one. I am not arguing against Evolution, but rather, against the so-called Occam's Razor.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,880
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Evolution is a relatively simple explanation, given that there's evidence of it at the population level all the way down to the molecular level.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,883
Occam's razor doesn't say that explanations can't be complex, you dimwit. The point is that assumptions are inherently irrational, and we should make as few as possible (some will always be necessary).
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,884
@3,880 (M)
I disagree. Without defining "simple," I would argue that there are hundreds of elements to Evolution, each of which ha to work just right, at just the right time, for humanity to exist. I do not consider that simple.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,888
@3,883 (N)
That is not true. Wilhelm von Ockham only stated that, in courts of law, in criminal cases, the burden of proof shifts when an overly complex explanation is presented. That is all he said.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,896
@3,884 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
So by that "logic" you wouldn't even "believe" in "life" at all, even the simplest of prokaryotes.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,898
@3,888 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Who cares about Wilhelm von Ockham? We're talking about Occam's razor, a principle that happens to bear his name.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,899
@3,896 (M)
No, no,p you are misunderstanding me. I am arguing against the reference to "Occam's ?Razor" by moderns who do not know what Occam actually said. I believe that explanations may be simple, or complicated, that it doe not matter. Something is true if it is true, period. Of course I believe in science, life, evolution, etc. I just do not accept Occam's Razor as a method of determining truth.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,902
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
No. sK.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,903
@3,898 (N)
Because there is no Occam's Razor. No one ever argued it. It is a misunderstanding of something a Medieval lawyer said.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,905
@3,888 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih) > the burden of proof shifts when an overly complex explanation is presented
Ok, now think about not what words he said, but what he is saying. Apply it to scientific thought or anything else.
Do you understand now?
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#3,907
@3,903 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih) > Because there is no Occam's Razor. No one ever argued it.
Several people have argued it in this very thread.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,908
@3,905 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
I have always understood what "Occam's Razor" means, and why people reference it. I, however, do not agree that the simplest explanation is the true one. I believe that many things, many profound things, are actually very complex.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,909
@3,907 (N)
I mean that no one named Occam ever argued such a thing.
Occam replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,911
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Okay: Avoid assumptions whenever possible.
Happy?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,913
@previous (Occam)
I think I can agree. However, all realms of human knowledge are based on some sort of assumptions. But yes, in regular reasoning, one should avoid assumptions if it is possible to do so.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,915
@3,899 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
How did you complete any college course above level 100? You are demonstrating a severe lack of mental ability if you cannot understand this simple concept. Something said on one topic can be applied to others.
You realize that Occam's Razor doesn't say that the simplest explanation is correct.
> I have always understood what "Occam's Razor" means, and why people reference it. I, however, do not agree that the simplest explanation is the true one.
You just demonstrated you do not understand Occam's razor.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,920
Now is the time to say you were trolling all along.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,921
@3,917 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
I understand the real Ockham's statement, but what I stated in that post, was the modern understanding of something called "Occam's Razor." I understand what YOU Are saying, yes. But most people today think that Occam's Razor means that "the simplest explanation is the right one." That is the modern, popular understanding of it. But yes, I DO understand both the original statement of Wilhelm von Ockham, and I understand what you are saying. Yes, I do.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,929
@3,899 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
I'm actually God posting from another universe.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,933
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,934
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
You don't believe me?
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,936
@3,921 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
What you think is the popular modern understanding is incorrect. That isnt occam's razor.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,942
@3,934 (M)
I am not sure actually. I understand that you are trying to get me to go with a perceived simpler explanation that you are not God, in order to argue that I myself naturally follow what is known as Occam's Razor, but I neither believe nor disbelieve you at this point. I would need more evidence.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,943
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
So all explanations are equally likely?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,949
1. Wilhelm von Ackham stated, in the 14th century, that in criminal cases, the burden of proof should shift to more complicated explanations.
2. The modern, popular, and incorrect explanation of Ockham's statement, is that the simpler explanation is usually the right one.
3. This does not preclude the possibility that what you, Jump, are arguing, be true. I am, however, for the purposes of this thread, making a strict distinction between modern, scientific thought, and numbers 1 and 2.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,954
@3,943 (M)
In an infinite universe, yes. According to what humans understand about this world, using our five senses? No. It seems to be that simpler explanations tend to be true. However, in an infinite universe, I cannot say that whatever my five little human senses perceive, has to be universally true.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,957
@3,949 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
It's harder to find historical statements that aren't distorted with time or even misnamed entirely than it is to find anything that retains the true, original meaning.
That doesn't refute the argument though.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,958
@3,954 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Infinite universe? In what way?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,960
@previous (M)
Well, as I have understood it, the most-accepted current theory says that the universe is infinite.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,961
THIS THREAD BLOWS GIANT DICKS
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,963
@3,960 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Wait, what theory? Everything I've studied indicates the exact opposite. But if you know of a specific theory, please do post it.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,964
@3,957 (M)
Yes, I know. That is exactly what I am saying.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,966
> Allow me to simplify. > > 1. Wilhelm von Ackham stated, in the 14th century, that in criminal cases, the burden of proof should shift to more complicated explanations. > > 2. The modern, popular, and incorrect explanation of Ockham's statement, is that the simpler explanation is usually the right one. >
There we go. that isn't occam's razor.
Occam's Razor is that you basically will choose the hypothesis that makes the least assumptions. Read @3,883 (N) again.
I guess we should have asked you to define occam's razor to begin with. I thought you were just picking over how it was intended for law and were unable to apply it to anything else.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,967
@3,963 (M)
There are many theories by Physicists about the nature of the universe. I have always been told that it is infinite. However, I am sure that there are many other, modern theories that say it is finite. I just do not know. What I am saying, is that, as far as we know, it is infinite. We cannot possibly claim to know the nature of everything from our little speck of dust called earth. That is why I think anything is possible -- I Cannot possibly be so hubristic as to categorically say that something simple cannot be.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,970
@3,954 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
The universe is expanding I thought, and I vaguely recall something about white noise or something outside the universe.
Not my area of expertise at all. I'm just going on fractured memories, so don't quote me.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,971
@3,966 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
I am, simply, making a distinction between what Ockham actually said, and what people seem to think he said.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,975
@3,967 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Uhm, yeah, no serious physicist has considered the universe infinite (spatially or temporally) for well over a century now. There is ample evidence that the universe is in fact expanding through both time and space at an accelerating rate.
We cannot claim to know everything, but to claim we know nothing is nihilistic. Why discuss or do anything at all then?
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,976
But by definition nothing, white noise, or otherwise can exist outside of the universe as the universe is existence itself.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,978
@3,975 (M)
What is outside of the universe? Also, I do not claim that we know nothing. I believe that we know many things, but oly in the context of our five senses, which, overall, could be deceived.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,981
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih) > What is outside of the universe?
By definition, nothing.
Think of all of space as being on the surface of a globe. The globe is being inflated at an increasing rate, but we will never be able to leave it as we are merely 3D creatures in a 4D (or higher) world similar to the analogy of 2D creatures in a 3D world on a globe. I highly recommend the book "Flatland" if you're more interested in this subject. It's more philosphical/religious-themed than scientific.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,983
@previous (M)
I am familiar with all of that. But, if the universe is finite, meaning it has a definite end, then something must be outside of it, because for all we know, there cannot be nothing.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,984
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
If you really consider the analogy of the globe, then you'll realize your statement doesn't make much sense.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,985
@3,971 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
You misunderstood what Occam's razor is. What he said, is applied and it's named for him because what he said can be applied.
Accept what you thought occam's razor meant was wrong, now you should understand what it really means. If you can't accept that, google it.
Now that you know what it means, apply it yo your paranormal hunting.
I guess GHOUL will never be the same.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,986
@3,984 (M)
It does as much as anything. Simply arguing that a 4th dimension exists, but that we can never truly understand it or perceive it, makes just as much or little sense as my claim.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,989
@3,985 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Look what googling it came up with:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.
The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism). Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[4]
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,990
@3,986 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
You don't experience time?
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,991
@3,976 (M)
Yea, I'm not quite sure where I got that from.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,992
@3,990 (M)
Sure I do, but prove to me that time is indeed the fourth dimension.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,993
@3,985 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
The consequences will consistently be the same.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,994
@3,992 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Do you understand what the meaning of "dimension" is?
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,995
@3,989 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Yes! Now you get it, yes?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,997
@3,994 (M)
Sure I do. A dimension is normally defined as a function of a space, not of time.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#3,998
> "The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions."
That is my point in this thread. That is exactly what I am trying to say.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,001
@3,997 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
The common definition, yes. But when you start talking about physics, that's not what is meant. Think of it from the perspective of linear algebra. At least 4 dimensions are needed to describe life as we know it. We know the lower bound, who knows what the upper is.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,004
@previous (M)
That is why I said "popular definition," and not "scientific definition."
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,006
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
oops wrong reply to wrong person lol
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,008
@4,001 (M)
But how can anyone prove that time is the fourth dimension outside of just declaring it fiat?
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,010
@4,004 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih) @4,006 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Well I'm confused who you're talking to or what you're even trying to argue. If you want to talk about 'proofs' you're going to have to use a little more rigorous terminology than popular definitions.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,011
@4,008 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Under what definition?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,012
@4,010 (M)
omg lol...What most people today, ordinary people, think "Occam's Razor" means, is not what Ockham actually said. There. That is ALL I am saying,.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,014
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
What is this. @4,008 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,015
@previous (M)
How do people know that time is the fourth dimension? That is all I am asking.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,016
@3,998 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
No. You thought that was the definition. You can't accept you misunderstood something?
> On what grounds? That a Medieval superstitious lawyer said so? Where is the objective, scientific evidence that simple explanations are more likely to be true? Are there not many known facts of science that have complicated explanations?
Are you insulting my intelligence? What you were arguing is clear. You thought an incorrect explanation of occam's razor is true. Otherwise, the first few things you say makes no sense. Even the first post.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,019
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Dude, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that Ockham said one thing, and that most normal, non-scientific people today, think he said something else. That is ALL I am saying.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,026
@4,015 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih) > In geometry, a coordinate system is a system which uses one or more numbers, or coordinates, to uniquely determine the position of a point or other geometric element.
To represent anything more than a static scene, an extra dimension is needed.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#4,028
@previous (M)
Ok thank you. That is a very solid, rational explanation. I understand it perfectly, and I can agree to that.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,041
@4,019 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
No you weren't. I can go read what you said. At least pretend you were trolling.
> I chuckle to myself when people cite Occam's razor as a sort of solution to scientific or physical problems. They do not realize that Occam was a Medieval theologian lol.
> "Newton's Laws of Motion" were actually not codified by Newton. He wrote down observations that tended toward them, but it was later scientists who codified them as we know then now.
> My point is that there is no "Ockham's Razor." There is no such thing. He never claimed such. It is only a modern misinterpretation of Medieval history that has falsely created this groundless principle.
> I understand. But my point is, on what grounds is it a tendency? Has anyone ever really done a scientific study on all arguments ever made, and concluded, in a peer-reviewed journal, that this tendency is true?
> Think logically. If you don't know something, and you are coming up with a hypothesis, you base it off the data you have, correct? > > Now, you observe something that cannot be explained, is your answer going to be based on things that are known and observed to happen or will you wildly speculate it must be an invisible man causing the observed event (let's say, a ball rolled up an inclined surface). > > You don't know the answer, but it's foolish to get into wild speculation. You should first exhaust possible known phenomena. If you start from an unfounded position that is not known to be true, when there is no evidence to suggest it other than you cannot explain, you are just making things up at that point. > > Does that help you understand it more?
> I understand it completely, and yes, what you said seems to make sense. My original point was only that there is no such thing as Occam's Razor, historically. And yes, simpler explanations seem to be more correct. However, I just do not think that human beings, living on a speck of dust in a vast universe, with only five feeble senses, can justifiably make a sweeping generalization like that.
You did not understand it. You were not arguing that "some people don't actually understand Occam's Razor."
Much later on you started saying something along the lines of the most common understood definition, so you realized you were wrong.
You can be wrong about something you aren't an expert on. The fact you knew the original quote shows you are somewhat educated. You don't have to feel ashamed.
Admit. Learn. Move on.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,044
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,046
@4,041 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
I do not, in fact, think that most people today understand what is meant by Occam's Razor. I think educated people do, but not most people. I Stand by that declaration.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,056
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Ok. But it wasn't what you were saying in the beginning.
Try not to act so smug in the future and maybe you can admit you were wrong.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,058
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Here is what I specifically said: "I chuckle to myself when people cite Occam's razor as a sort of solution to scientific or physical problems." By "people," I meant most people. I was not referring specifically to physicians or scientists, but to most people. I Stand by my original statement.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,063
@4,056 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
You are speaking to the guy who claims that someone used a time machine to discredit his ghost hunting web site.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,080
@4,058 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
You have nothing left of your internet persona, do you?
Every lie you have said, every reality you have tried to create has come crashing down.
Your identity as an "academic" was the last thing you had. Being wrong about one thing outside your expertise shouldn't make you feel so threatened.
Do you really feel that nothing is left? If this is so terrifying to you, I recommend you stop with the fantasy.
You aren't the heir of a millionaire. You've never seen a ghost. You don't have a villain name sK stalking and harassing you. You aren't even a good troll.
You do have a graduate degree. You probably are intelligent. You don't need to feel so threatened by everything that is negative about you.
Try to focus on some good. I'm gonna drop this because I understand you are going through a rough time right now, but you need to maybe take an Internet break while you get your life in order.
You can't escape into this fantasy anymore. Reality has invaded.
Be strong. You can create a reality that you are happy with.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#4,082