Occam's dull and rusty razor

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Greylorn Ell »

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
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Gary Childress »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
That does sound better.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Skepdick »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm 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.
Would you say that your advice is contemporary to any particular area of physics?

How would you solve metaphysics in classical physics?
How would you solve metaphysics in relativistic physics?
How would you solve metaphysics in quantum physics?

I'd say you misunderstand the nature of the problem. To "solve" metaphysics is to unify physics.

Theory of Everything.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Atla »

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
Like many people, you seem to have misunderstood the razor.
The idea that the universe has a precursor, is an unnecessary postulate. It violates the razor.
The idea of one thing as the precursor, is actually two postulates: it postulates that something exists, but it also postulates that existence is limited. It violates the razor.
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 »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:51 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm 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.
Would you say that your advice is contemporary to any particular area of physics?

How would you solve metaphysics in classical physics?
How would you solve metaphysics in relativistic physics?
How would you solve metaphysics in quantum physics?

I'd say you misunderstand the nature of the problem. To "solve" metaphysics is to unify physics.

Theory of Everything.
The recommendation is not my own, and it applies to all areas of physics, including quantumology. It also applies to all aspects of metaphysics, which, like it or not, is joined at the hip to basic physics.

My answers to your "How would..." questions are contained in the book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul." Lots of luck getting a copy, except directly from me. Amazon reneged on our publishing agreement. "How would..." does not apply. The answers are clearly defined.

More simply explained versions of these answers are in a synopsis which I'm currently trying to publish as an ebook or some internet-accessible form.

Your assessment of the problem is correct, and perhaps a bit shortsighted. The questions involving physics, cosmology, metaphysics, and human consciousness must be solved with a single and relatively simple theory, all together.

That's the easy part. The hard part is getting it read by someone with a 3-digit IQ who knows enough to evaluate the concepts.

GL
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 »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
That does sound better.

Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Gary Childress »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
That does sound better.

Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL
So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?
How about not assuming there must be an explanation? Existence just is and has the nature it has and is not contingent on anything else. Why presume there is some other thing (which you then must assume just is) preceding existence?

If your going to play the "what's the cause of everything," game, you lose. Whatever your answer is (God, some physical event, etc.) you are going to have to answer, what caused that? It's called an infinite regress.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Impenitent »

who needs a watchmaker if you can't tell time?

-Imp
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?
How about not assuming there must be an explanation? Existence just is and has the nature it has and is not contingent on anything else. Why presume there is some other thing (which you then must assume just is) preceding existence?

If your going to play the "what's the cause of everything," game, you lose. Whatever your answer is (God, some physical event, etc.) you are going to have to answer, what caused that? It's called an infinite regress.
I think that's a fair point. Still, the irresistible temptation seems to present itself to some of us, I think. It seems difficult sometimes not to think in terms of beginnings and ends.

I assume somewhere out there is an absolute answer to such questions, although it may be impossible for us to know.
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 »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 am

That does sound better.

Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL
So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?
I think so. Instead of trying to explain the universe and human consciousness from a single hypothesis that is internally complex, as per Rupert Sheldrake's observation, a perfectly credible explanation can be constructed from a few simple hypotheses:

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

One space is that of Dark Energy, the space wherein our bodies, brains, and the essential supporting universe exists.

The other is something I call Aeon Space, which produces a counterforce to that of D.E., and is where our conscious minds exist.

The 3rd is a containment space that allows the others to interact.

GL
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Skepdick »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am 3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.
Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor

Post by Gary Childress »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 am
Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL
So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?
I think so. Instead of trying to explain the universe and human consciousness from a single hypothesis that is internally complex, as per Rupert Sheldrake's observation, a perfectly credible explanation can be constructed from a few simple hypotheses:

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

One space is that of Dark Energy, the space wherein our bodies, brains, and the essential supporting universe exists.

The other is something I call Aeon Space, which produces a counterforce to that of D.E., and is where our conscious minds exist.

The 3rd is a containment space that allows the others to interact.

GL
Interesting. I wonder if rethinking concepts such as substance, energy, matter, mind, space etc. and finding new concepts could conceivably work to produce a more coherent physics. Or are our current categories and terminology sufficient?
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 »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:59 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am 3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.
Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?
I must be. Throughout the process of getting a simple BS in physics I was never introduced to an explanation of space that made an iota of sense. Give me a description of space that somehow differs from modern cosmology's use of "field." and I'll come back as best I can.

GL
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 »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am

So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?
I think so. Instead of trying to explain the universe and human consciousness from a single hypothesis that is internally complex, as per Rupert Sheldrake's observation, a perfectly credible explanation can be constructed from a few simple hypotheses:

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

One space is that of Dark Energy, the space wherein our bodies, brains, and the essential supporting universe exists.

The other is something I call Aeon Space, which produces a counterforce to that of D.E., and is where our conscious minds exist.

The 3rd is a containment space that allows the others to interact.

GL
Interesting. I wonder if rethinking concepts such as substance, energy, matter, mind, space etc. and finding new concepts could conceivably work to produce a more coherent physics. Or are our current categories and terminology sufficient?
Years ago I concluded that currently defined categories, plus the terminology that goes with them, are derived from the opinions of ancient monotheistic goat herders, and of no value to anyone trying to figure out the origins of things, human consciousness included. Hence the 3-space alternative described above, which seems to form the basis for a cogent but unpublished theory.

GL
Post Reply