Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

AMod
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by AMod » Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:34 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.

Greylorn
Not rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394

AMod.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1537
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:25 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:00 pm
The 20th century philosopher/mathematician Bertrand Russel proposed:

Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

Please take a second, thoughtfully evaluated look at this simple yet profound statement:

Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

Translated-- Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas.

I regard Russel's Razor as the only intelligent philosophical criterion for determining the respective values of opposing hypothesis, physical or metaphysical.
I am a fan of the early-Russell.
I agree the above is very useful and effective.

In the History of Western Philosophy, Russell wrote the following;
Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogmas as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides, and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.
What Russell alluded to is we do Philosophy by exploring that No Man's Land while solidly anchored to the Definite Knowledge of Science. Thus we can justify and trace back to some 'definite' grounds when our hypothesis or abductions are questioned.

Theology on the other hand do not anchor itself on the Definite Knowledge of Science and others [logic, critical thinking, etc.] but take a leap of faith across the No Man's Land into La La Land.
This is why theists are unable to explain God with any verifiable linkage to definite knowledge and thus making all sort of excuses.

Note this flimsy haste by Plato in this thread;
Plato Left the World of Senses ....
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25629

So I do agree with Russel's Razor, but to state;
PROPOSITION: OCCAM'S RAZOR IS A STUPID CRITERION
is too extreme in terms of either black or white.

I believe Occam's Razor* is an essential and useful maxim [K.I.S.S] as long as we are doing Philosophy while being anchored on the Definite Knowledge of Science and others [logic, critical thinking, etc.].
*Notable in Physics e.g. E=MC2, etc.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:40 pm

AMod wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:34 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.

Greylorn
Not rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394

AMod.
AMod,
Rules reviewed, point taken, suitably chastised. Thank you! I'll stop whining.

I'd prefer to manage my own threads without bothering you, if possible. May I deal with offending participants by threatening to PM you, or should I go directly to you after non-threatening requests go unheeded?

Greylorn

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2869
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:02 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:40 pm
AMod wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:34 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.

Greylorn
Not rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394

AMod.
AMod,
Rules reviewed, point taken, suitably chastised. Thank you! I'll stop whining.
I don't think your whining is so much of a problem as your arrogance. If people are less knowledgeable than yourself about a particular subject matter, does not mean they are necessarily less intelligent than yourself, and perhaps they could gain great insight by what you have to offer. For me this place is as much a place to learn as it is to profess.
In short, don't tell people not to post within your threads for any reason, we all have to deal with wafflers that take threads off on incomprehensible tangents where they appear to not comprehend concise succinct rational points, but at least some, myself included, enjoy learning from others. If they don't understand and start to argue with irrelevance, and after one or two further attempts it continues, then eventually ignore them.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:20 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:02 pm
I don't think your whining is so much of a problem as your arrogance. If people are less knowledgeable than yourself about a particular subject matter, does not mean they are necessarily less intelligent than yourself, and perhaps they could gain great insight by what you have to offer. For me this place is as much a place to learn as it is to profess.
In short, don't tell people not to post within your threads for any reason, we all have to deal with wafflers that take threads off on incomprehensible tangents where they appear to not comprehend concise succinct rational points, but at least some, myself included, enjoy learning from others. If they don't understand and start to argue with irrelevance, and after one or two further attempts it continues, then eventually ignore them.
Atto,
You mistake confidence in the effectiveness of my mind plus concomitant disdain for nitwits who parrot the beliefs of others in lieu of any interesting thoughts arising from within, for arrogance. I'm here only to exchange ideas, in the unlikely event that there is anyone engaged with this forum has any. I have no interest in making a gaggle of irrelevant pseudo-intellectuals feel good.

If you have interesting thoughts to contribute, I'm listening. On the point of the OP, of course.
Greylorn

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by bahman » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:38 pm

You need a necessary number of correct premises. For example: sometimes you cannot make the argument with two premises and you need to make the argument in two steps, the conclusion of the first part becomes the first premises of second part.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:38 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:38 pm
You need a necessary number of correct premises. For example: sometimes you cannot make the argument with two premises and you need to make the argument in two steps, the conclusion of the first part becomes the first premises of second part.
WTF are you talking about? Back up this bullshit with an example, please. -GL

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by bahman » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:25 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:38 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:38 pm
You need a necessary number of correct premises. For example: sometimes you cannot make the argument with two premises and you need to make the argument in two steps, the conclusion of the first part becomes the first premises of second part.
WTF are you talking about? Back up this bullshit with an example, please. -GL
1) First premise of first part
2) Second premise of second part
3) Conclusion of first part and the first premise for the second part
4) Second premise for the second part
5) Conclusion

Example:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:08 am

By example, I did not mean more of your obscure and meaningless theoretical horseshit. Produce a real, practical example, or go away and try to infect some other thread. -GL

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2869
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by attofishpi » Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:52 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:00 pm
The 20th century philosopher/mathematician Bertrand Russel proposed:

Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

Please take a second, thoughtfully evaluated look at this simple yet profound statement:

Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

Translated-- Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas.

I regard Russel's Razor as the only intelligent philosophical criterion for determining the respective values of opposing hypothesis, physical or metaphysical.
I think this is a more forward thinking, practical manifestation perhaps knocking Occam's Razor off the top shelf, so to speak. In its effect, it comprehends what we know, and from that permits more metaphysical consideration of the possibilities rather that just stating, hey that's an assumption, so disregard it.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:46 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:52 pm
I think this is a more forward thinking, practical manifestation perhaps knocking Occam's Razor off the top shelf, so to speak. In its effect, it comprehends what we know, and from that permits more metaphysical consideration of the possibilities rather that just stating, hey that's an assumption, so disregard it.
Well said, Atto! And thank you! Having verified the existence of at least two clear-thinking minds on this forum, I can proceed to put Russell's criterion to work, by hypothesizing the pre-existence of three spaces, each with only three absolutely simple properties; from which I can develop an alternative to current beliefs about the beginnings that includes human consciousness and explains dark energy.
New thread, of course, as time permits.

Greylorn

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11328
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:35 am

Please spare us Beon theory again!

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:09 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:35 am
Please spare us Beon theory again!
Here's a special plan just for you and other pinheads-- Inasmuch as you are not capable of understanding it, why not simply decline to peruse it? Duh? :? GL

devans99
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:53 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:00 pm

Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

Translated-- Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas.

I regard Russel's Razor as the only intelligent philosophical criterion for determining the respective values of opposing hypothesis, physical or metaphysical.
You do not even understand Russell's Razor - you can't make it the sole criterion for evaluating theories - it is not applicable in many instances as Russell recognised when he said use it 'wherever possible'. For example; the question of whether there was a start of time; we are at least 14 billion years too late to collect direct evidence. Or the question is space infinite - empirically unanswerable.

I don't understand how you can say Occam's Razor is stupid - less assumptions the better is just obvious - are you stupid?

Referencing Ptolemaic astronomy to show Occam's Razor is inappropriate is just plain foolish - they did not have telescopes and made an easy mistake - can you feel the earth moving? No nor could Ptolemy 2000 years ago - the Copernicus system is just very unobvious and not a reason to discard a common sense principle.

Logik
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:15 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:53 pm
I don't understand how you can say Occam's Razor is stupid - less assumptions the better is just obvious - are you stupid?
It is not "obvious".

A theory with more assumptions that predicts accurately is objectively better than one with fewer assumptions that predicts incorrectly.

Occam's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility.

The distinction between explanation and prediction is paramount: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests