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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

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

Logik wrote:
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
I know. Did not think it was worth mentioning. Russel's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility also.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:14 pm
I know. Did not think it was worth mentioning. Russel's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility also.
I am yet to see any two theories with identical domains of applicability which have identical predictive utility.

If that were the case - they would be mathematically isomorphic.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

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

Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:19 pm
devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:14 pm
I know. Did not think it was worth mentioning. Russel's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility also.
I am yet to see any two theories with identical domains of applicability which have identical predictive utility.

If that were the case - they would be mathematically isomorphic.
Wikipedia says:

"In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic to guide scientists in developing theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models"

There is a lengthy section on the application of Occam's Razor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s ... plications

Cosmology is an example of where Occam's Razor should be used but is not used. They are working on multiple universe and single universe theories. The multiple universe theories are more complex and no more predictive than the single universe theories. But cosmologists spend most of their time on the multiple universe theories. I think its the case that multiple universe theories are more atheistic than single universe theories so they are favoured.

attofishpi
Posts: 3659
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.

devans99 wrote:
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.
How many good ideas should we waste, by losing the imagination simply because there is an assumption?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
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.

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:14 am
devans99 wrote:
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.
How many good ideas should we waste, by losing the imagination simply because there is an assumption?
Feel free to waste every one of mine, which you and your fellow philosophers have been doing for the last half century. Have any of you people read Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book," or Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" I'd guess that with a few exceptions you've been too busy watching documentary tv commercials. -GL

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:58 pm
Feel free to waste every one of mine, which you and your fellow philosophers have been doing for the last half century. Have any of you people read Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book," or Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" I'd guess that with a few exceptions you've been too busy watching documentary tv commercials. -GL
In context of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" I wouldn't be putting my money on physicists to come up with the next revolution/paradigm.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
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.

Logik wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:10 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:58 pm
Feel free to waste every one of mine, which you and your fellow philosophers have been doing for the last half century. Have any of you people read Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book," or Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" I'd guess that with a few exceptions you've been too busy watching documentary tv commercials. -GL
In context of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" I wouldn't be putting my money on physicists to come up with the next revolution/paradigm.
Logik,
Kuhn would certainly second your non-bet. In context of his physics doctorate, that's a solid second.

I'll go further than you. Physicists who have merely been exposed to an alternative react pretty much like a born-again Christian would have reacted to Madeline Murray O'Hair (back when) or are likely to react to Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett today if they understood them.

What has surprised me (and continues to do so) is that those who claim to e seeking alternative ideas react identically, albeit with slightly better emotional restraint.

Have you developed alternatives? If so, what's your experience trying to present them?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
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.

devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:14 pm
Logik wrote:
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
I know. Did not think it was worth mentioning. Russel's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility also.
Dev99,
I've been in arguments wherein someone pointed out to me something about which I was completely ignorant, whereupon to make myself look smarter than I was, I replied like you, "I know." I was younger then, but not living in my parents' basement.

Too late for you. I don't think you "knew" squat.

And WTF does this phrase, identical predictive utility mean? Reads like philosophical horseshit to me.
Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
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.

devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:42 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:19 pm
devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:14 pm
I know. Did not think it was worth mentioning. Russel's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility also.
I am yet to see any two theories with identical domains of applicability which have identical predictive utility.

If that were the case - they would be mathematically isomorphic.
Wikipedia says:

"In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic to guide scientists in developing theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models"

There is a lengthy section on the application of Occam's Razor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s ... plications

Cosmology is an example of where Occam's Razor should be used but is not used. They are working on multiple universe and single universe theories. The multiple universe theories are more complex and no more predictive than the single universe theories. But cosmologists spend most of their time on the multiple universe theories. I think its the case that multiple universe theories are more atheistic than single universe theories so they are favoured.
You might have a point. I'd not considered the atheism aspect, but am not sure how it might apply to , let's say, a particular cosmologist/astrologer. Thoughts?

My interpretation of the stupid attachment of cosmologists to multiverse theory is that at their cunning, moneygrubbing little hearts, they realized long ago that all their theories suck and can never amount to jack shit. So to secure government funding for their ongoing "research," meaning sitting around on their fat asses, smoking dope, and exchanging bullshit all day, they can come up with a really stupid and non-scientific theory that the nitwits who watch documentary TV channels and scan pop-sci magazines will accept. They depend upon those (often us) nincompoops to support (or at least not object to) taxpayer funding of their comfy-couch occupation project.

These pinheads are, after all, our modern day priests. They perform the same useless functions. The same pseudo-intellectuals keep buying into their crap.

Greylorn

henry quirk
Posts: 6060
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Cosmology is an example of where Occam's Razor should be used but is not used. They are working on multiple universe and single universe theories. The multiple universe theories are more complex and no more predictive than the single universe theories. But cosmologists spend most of their time on the multiple universe theories. I think its the case that multiple universe theories are more atheistic than single universe theories so they are favoured.

My interpretation of the stupid attachment of cosmologists to multiverse theory is that at their cunning, moneygrubbing little hearts, they realized long ago that all their theories suck and can never amount to jack shit. So to secure government funding for their ongoing "research," meaning sitting around on their fat asses, smoking dope, and exchanging bullshit all day, they can come up with a really stupid and non-scientific theory that the nitwits who watch documentary TV channels and scan pop-sci magazines will accept. They depend upon those (often us) nincompoops to support (or at least not object to) taxpayer funding of their comfy-couch occupation project.

Lazy, dope-smokin' atheist geeks: makes sense to me (cuz there's just one friggin' universe/reality/timeline [that cat in the box? it's alive or dead, not both]).

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
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.

Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:19 pm
devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:14 pm
I know. Did not think it was worth mentioning. Russel's Razor is only relevant given identical predictive utility also.
I am yet to see any two theories with identical domains of applicability which have identical predictive utility.

If that were the case - they would be mathematically isomorphic.
Isomorphism is a property defined in the context of mathematics. Proposing that it might somehow apply to philosophical bullshit expressed in various imprecise languages is at least a bit of a stretch, and at worst just another philosophical obfuscation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:06 am
Cosmology is an example of where Occam's Razor should be used but is not used. They are working on multiple universe and single universe theories. The multiple universe theories are more complex and no more predictive than the single universe theories. But cosmologists spend most of their time on the multiple universe theories. I think its the case that multiple universe theories are more atheistic than single universe theories so they are favoured.

My interpretation of the stupid attachment of cosmologists to multiverse theory is that at their cunning, moneygrubbing little hearts, they realized long ago that all their theories suck and can never amount to jack shit. So to secure government funding for their ongoing "research," meaning sitting around on their fat asses, smoking dope, and exchanging bullshit all day, they can come up with a really stupid and non-scientific theory that the nitwits who watch documentary TV channels and scan pop-sci magazines will accept. They depend upon those (often us) nincompoops to support (or at least not object to) taxpayer funding of their comfy-couch occupation project.

Lazy, dope-smokin' atheist geeks: makes sense to me (cuz there's just one friggin' universe/reality/timeline [that cat in the box? it's alive or dead, not both]).
Henry,
You're a fourth kindred spirit. I'm getting inspired to elucidate the entirety of Natural Creation theory, and am counting on you to contribute your thoughts.

But be forewarned. I believe in a Creator, but this is not the God of any established religion.

-GL

henry quirk
Posts: 6060
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
"I'm getting inspired to elucidate the entirety of Natural Creation theory, and am counting on you to contribute your thoughts."

You post it and -- if I understand it and have sumthin' worth contributin' -- I'll comment.

#

"But be forewarned. I believe in a Creator, but this is not the God of any established religion."

Me: an indifferent agnostic (don't know, don't care). If 'god' exists it probably fits neatly into a deistic framework (I'd be damned surprised if Jehovah or Allah were/are the 'ground of all things') which is to say: if 'god' exists it's probably more like Robert E. Howard's Crom than anything else.

Anyway: go for it, Grey.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:08 am
Isomorphism is a property defined in the context of mathematics. Proposing that it might somehow apply to philosophical bullshit expressed in various imprecise languages is at least a bit of a stretch, and at worst just another philosophical obfuscation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

Greylorn
Mathematics is just a very precise language with flexible semantics/grammar.

I am using isomorphism to mean identical. Both in the precise Mathematical sense and in a broader holistic sense, while always keeping in the back of my mind that all languages (even Mathematics) are just tools.

To say X describes/predicts /explains phenomenon Y precisely, and P describes/predicts/explains phenomenon Y precisely implies that X and P are identical theories. And since Mathematics is just a language, another way to say 'isomorphic' would be X and P are synonymous. At least in my mind.

That we have given X and P different symbols in logic; or different words in English and we bicker over synonyms is where the philosophical disconnect takes place. Synonyms are distinctions without a difference.

The mistake I see all scientists make is they fail to recognise Mathematics as a language. This is the same mistake Mathematicians make and while they get carried away in aesthetics and complexity by following contrived sets of axioms to their logical conclusions, they completely forget about simpler notions such as completeness and consistency.

If you don't understand the limits of your tools - they will soon enslave you. Tarski, Godel, Church, Turing and a few others put an end to this madness about 80 years ago. I am not sure it has rubbed off on physicists yet.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:39 am
But be forewarned. I believe in a Creator, but this is not the God of any established religion.
You will find that a logician's disagreement with deities isn't on the grounds of religious opposition, but merely one of consistency.

We are trapped in a causal mindset. We expect every cause to have an effect, and every effect to have a cause. Because we are creatures of habit we rely on this inductive principle to conclude that the universe (an effect) must have a cause. And we gave that cause a name.

But why stop there with inductive reasoning? What caused the cause? To infinite regress.

It is by Occam's razor that I choose to have only one unexplained cause in my ontology rather than two (or more).

I call the unexplained cause The Universe.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests