Occam's dull and rusty razor

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

roydop
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by roydop »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.

Over time, Aristotle's principle was modified by pinheads such as the mathematician Ptolemy, who blew off the "other things" clause and limited the postulate count to one of his own choosing, which he then used to develop "Ptolemaic Astronomy," the stupidest model of reality since monotheism, thereby setting the development of science back by 1400 years.

The religious nit Ockham's silly rule (look it up for yourself) has been the turd stuck in science's butt for centuries, because of it's absurd insistence that one thing must be the precursor to the the universe, no matter how complex the "one thing" might be:

e.g: An almighty God with the ability to create anything from nothing with a mere act of will,

Or an impossible to define "Physical Singularity" that appeared spontaneously and then blew itself up, creating a complex universe with 26 interconnected physical constants, matter, energy, all the principles of physics, and biological life forms who (except on philosophy forums) sometimes exhibit the phenomena of conscious self-awareness and cogent thought.

There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

GL
Firstly, by definition metaphysics is beyond the scope of physics. Secondly, it is only thought that presents these "problems". So thought creates a problem and then chases after a solution.

Mind is a hamster on a wheel.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Greylorn Ell »

roydop wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.

Over time, Aristotle's principle was modified by pinheads such as the mathematician Ptolemy, who blew off the "other things" clause and limited the postulate count to one of his own choosing, which he then used to develop "Ptolemaic Astronomy," the stupidest model of reality since monotheism, thereby setting the development of science back by 1400 years.

The religious nit Ockham's silly rule (look it up for yourself) has been the turd stuck in science's butt for centuries, because of it's absurd insistence that one thing must be the precursor to the the universe, no matter how complex the "one thing" might be:

e.g: An almighty God with the ability to create anything from nothing with a mere act of will,

Or an impossible to define "Physical Singularity" that appeared spontaneously and then blew itself up, creating a complex universe with 26 interconnected physical constants, matter, energy, all the principles of physics, and biological life forms who (except on philosophy forums) sometimes exhibit the phenomena of conscious self-awareness and cogent thought.

There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

GL
Firstly, by definition metaphysics is beyond the scope of physics. Secondly, it is only thought that presents these "problems". So thought creates a problem and then chases after a solution.

Mind is a hamster on a wheel.
Just because conventional philosophers have defined metaphysics as a purely philosophical subject does not prevent me from using established physics principles to explore the subject more effectively. I decline to be bound by the beliefs of ignorant people.

As for hamsters-- not all minds are like yours.
GL
roydop
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by roydop »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:37 am
roydop wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.

Over time, Aristotle's principle was modified by pinheads such as the mathematician Ptolemy, who blew off the "other things" clause and limited the postulate count to one of his own choosing, which he then used to develop "Ptolemaic Astronomy," the stupidest model of reality since monotheism, thereby setting the development of science back by 1400 years.

The religious nit Ockham's silly rule (look it up for yourself) has been the turd stuck in science's butt for centuries, because of it's absurd insistence that one thing must be the precursor to the the universe, no matter how complex the "one thing" might be:

e.g: An almighty God with the ability to create anything from nothing with a mere act of will,

Or an impossible to define "Physical Singularity" that appeared spontaneously and then blew itself up, creating a complex universe with 26 interconnected physical constants, matter, energy, all the principles of physics, and biological life forms who (except on philosophy forums) sometimes exhibit the phenomena of conscious self-awareness and cogent thought.

There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

GL
Firstly, by definition metaphysics is beyond the scope of physics. Secondly, it is only thought that presents these "problems". So thought creates a problem and then chases after a solution.

Mind is a hamster on a wheel.
Just because conventional philosophers have defined metaphysics as a purely philosophical subject does not prevent me from using established physics principles to explore the subject more effectively. I decline to be bound by the beliefs of ignorant people.

As for hamsters-- not all minds are like yours.
GL
90% of my waking time is thought free. How long are you able to remain thought free, hamster? Just try to stop thinking and then speak honestly. But you either won't investigate this, or you will disregard the fact that you can't control your own mind as being irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It's delusion; the source of your suffering.

I decline to be bound by the labyrinth constructed by thought.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Greylorn Ell »

Age wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:44 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."
What do you actually think 'philosophy' is, and what do you think is the purpose of 'philosophy'?
Real philosophy is a bunch of young college kids sitting down together and drinking enough beer that one of them can safely ask, "What the hell are we, as human beings? Why do we exist? Upon our demise, does consciousness terminate or change phase?

Formal philosophy is a gaggle of pretentious academicians selling their meaningless drivel to students whose parents can afford to support their offspring through five years of bullshitland, to become overqualified burger chefs.

The purpose of philosophy is to guarantee these academicians a lofty salary, despite their total lack of intellectual or practical contributions.
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.
Age wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:44 am Obviously the less postulates or hypotheses the better.
This is obvious only to those religionists and atheists who have not paid attention to Rupert Sheldrake, who have not considered the inherent complexity of a supposedly simple concept.

By the way, someone who understood basic English grammar would have used "fewer" rather than "less."
Age wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:44 am In fact, the less assuming or guessing there is, then the closer to thee Truth of things.
"Thee?" Are thou another Bible thumper?

I'll not reply further until you have established yourself as an intelligent person capable of basic logic.
GL
Age
Posts: 5124
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Age »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:24 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:44 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."
What do you actually think 'philosophy' is, and what do you think is the purpose of 'philosophy'?
Real philosophy is a bunch of young college kids sitting down together and drinking enough beer that one of them can safely ask, "What the hell are we, as human beings? Why do we exist? Upon our demise, does consciousness terminate or change phase?

Formal philosophy is a gaggle of pretentious academicians selling their meaningless drivel to students whose parents can afford to support their offspring through five years of bullshitland, to become overqualified burger chefs.

The purpose of philosophy is to guarantee these academicians a lofty salary, despite their total lack of intellectual or practical contributions.
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.
Age wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:44 am Obviously the less postulates or hypotheses the better.
This is obvious only to those religionists and atheists who have not paid attention to Rupert Sheldrake, who have not considered the inherent complexity of a supposedly simple concept.
But this is NOT obvious only to some "religionists" and "atheists".

Thee actual Truth is SEEN far simpler, and far easier, with NO postulates NOR any hypotheses at all.

By the way, there is NO complexity AT ALL in this extremely simple concept.
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:24 am By the way, someone who understood basic English grammar would have used "fewer" rather than "less."
Would someone, maybe a "pretentious academician", who, supposedly, understood basic english grammar also use the word "religionists", as well as the word 'fewer' rather than 'less'.?

By the way, I am CERTAINLY NOT someone who understood basic english grammar. And, hopefully NEVER will.
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:24 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:44 am In fact, the less assuming or guessing there is, then the closer to thee Truth of things.
"Thee?" Are thou another Bible thumper?
On the contrary.
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:24 am I'll not reply further until you have established yourself as an intelligent person capable of basic logic.
GL
I care not one iota either way.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Greylorn Ell »

roydop wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.

Over time, Aristotle's principle was modified by pinheads such as the mathematician Ptolemy, who blew off the "other things" clause and limited the postulate count to one of his own choosing, which he then used to develop "Ptolemaic Astronomy," the stupidest model of reality since monotheism, thereby setting the development of science back by 1400 years.

The religious nit Ockham's silly rule (look it up for yourself) has been the turd stuck in science's butt for centuries, because of it's absurd insistence that one thing must be the precursor to the the universe, no matter how complex the "one thing" might be:

e.g: An almighty God with the ability to create anything from nothing with a mere act of will,

Or an impossible to define "Physical Singularity" that appeared spontaneously and then blew itself up, creating a complex universe with 26 interconnected physical constants, matter, energy, all the principles of physics, and biological life forms who (except on philosophy forums) sometimes exhibit the phenomena of conscious self-awareness and cogent thought.

There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

GL
Firstly, by definition metaphysics is beyond the scope of physics. Secondly, it is only thought that presents these "problems". So thought creates a problem and then chases after a solution.

Mind is a hamster on a wheel.
roydop wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.

Over time, Aristotle's principle was modified by pinheads such as the mathematician Ptolemy, who blew off the "other things" clause and limited the postulate count to one of his own choosing, which he then used to develop "Ptolemaic Astronomy," the stupidest model of reality since monotheism, thereby setting the development of science back by 1400 years.

The religious nit Ockham's silly rule (look it up for yourself) has been the turd stuck in science's butt for centuries, because of it's absurd insistence that one thing must be the precursor to the the universe, no matter how complex the "one thing" might be:

e.g: An almighty God with the ability to create anything from nothing with a mere act of will,

Or an impossible to define "Physical Singularity" that appeared spontaneously and then blew itself up, creating a complex universe with 26 interconnected physical constants, matter, energy, all the principles of physics, and biological life forms who (except on philosophy forums) sometimes exhibit the phenomena of conscious self-awareness and cogent thought.

There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

GL
Firstly, by definition metaphysics is beyond the scope of physics. Secondly, it is only thought that presents these "problems". So thought creates a problem and then chases after a solution.

Mind is a hamster on a wheel.

By definition, the term metaphysics arose because the students who did their best to compile Aristotle's teachings placed his speculative thoughts about the beginnings of things ahead of his ideas about physics. Ante is a Greek prefix meaning "before," hence the confusing term metaphysics. Aristotle's ideas about the beginnings of things were derived after he'd explained his notions about real physics principles, and should have been placed afterwards, properly labeled antephysics.

Would you consider changing wheels?
GL
roydop
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by roydop »

All thought processes are hamster wheels. I have no longer have a use for thought. When the purpose of all of this is realized, the process has been completed. Then there's just happiness and contentment.
Post Reply