Occam's dull and rusty razor
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
- Location: SE Arizona
Occam's dull and rusty razor
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
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
-
- Posts: 8127
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
That does sound better.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.
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
Would you say that your advice is contemporary to any particular area of physics?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.
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.
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
Like many people, you seem to have misunderstood the razor.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
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.
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
- Location: SE Arizona
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:51 amWould you say that your advice is contemporary to any particular area of physics?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.
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.
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
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
- Location: SE Arizona
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 amThat does sound better.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.
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
-
- Posts: 8127
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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"?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 amGary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 amThat does sound better.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.
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
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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?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"?
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.
-
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
who needs a watchmaker if you can't tell time?
-Imp
-Imp
-
- Posts: 8127
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pmHow 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?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"?
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 assume somewhere out there is an absolute answer to such questions, although it may be impossible for us to know.
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
- Location: SE Arizona
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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:Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 amSo is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?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
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
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?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.
-
- Posts: 8127
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 amI 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:Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 amSo is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?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
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
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
- Location: SE Arizona
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:59 amAre those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?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.
GL
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
- Location: SE Arizona
Re: Occam's dull and rusty razor
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.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 amInteresting. 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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 amI 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: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"?
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
GL