I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." — Greylorn Ell

Are you qute sure you understand Occam's Razor? You must, as you're sure it's fundamentally stupid. But I think you do not. I think you know not what it is, what it's about, nor what it's for. Prove me wrong in a well crafted sentence or two or three. But I think you cannot.

Are you qute sure you understand Occam's Razor? You must, as you're sure it's fundamentally stupid. But I think you do not. I think you know not what it is, what it's about, nor what it's for. Prove me wrong in a well crafted sentence or two or three. But I think you cannot. — tim wood

Great. Another philosopher who does not know that he does not know jack shit. Let's begin with you showing that you know anything about the origin and history of Occam's worthless principle. After you fail to do that, I'll correct you and put you on my nit list.

Sorry for the interruption but how do you know what other people don't know?

Sorry for the interruption but how do you know what other people don't know? — Zophie

From the nature and quality of their questions. I raised 3 offspring who were invited to question everything that engaged their curiosity.

If someone asks why the sky is blue, or wonders why the colors in a rainbow appear in a common order, I know that they have not studied basic physics.

You should learn to determine the ignorance level of any person with a single question. Saves time.

You claim something is stupid. In as much as the thing that you claim is stupid has a distinct history and significance, the dismissal of it out of hand is a hallmark of ignorance of that thing and its history and significance. It is as if I claimed the American Revolution was "fundamentally stupid."

Anyway, you make a claim. I call you on it, and you have no substantive answer. I'll give you a clue. It has originally to do with realism and nominalism. I am also quite aware that it has a watered down modern sense, but in as much as the modern sense has it's own derivative function, it cannot be that that too is "fundamentally stupid."

But you've made an annoying and inappropriate reply. So put up or quit and retreat.

You claim something is stupid. In as much as the thing that you claim is stupid has a distinct history and significance, the dismissal of it out of hand is a hallmark of ignorance of that thing and its history and significance. It is as if I claimed the American Revolution was "fundamentally stupid."

Anyway, you make a claim. I call you on it, and you have no substantive answer. I'll give you a clue. It has originally to do with realism and nominalism. I am also quite aware that it has a watered down modern sense, but in as much as the modern sense has it's own derivative function, it cannot be that that too is "fundamentally stupid."

But you've made an annoying and inappropriate reply. So put up or quit and retreat. — tim wood

Unlike you and your programmed ilk, I am not a traditionalist. Address my ideas or shut up.

Address my ideas — Greylorn Ell

Have you not noticed? I am addressing exactly your ideas. Apparently Occam's Razor is not the only thing you don't know about.

Have you not noticed? I am addressing exactly your ideas. Apparently Occam's Razor is not the only thing you don't know about. — tim wood

There is no point in extending this conversation, until you get a brain transplant. I've no interest in communicating with programmed brains. Good bye.

You ain't gonna last long.

You ain't gonna last long. — Banno

I hope that you are right.

2 minutes ago
Reply
Options[/quote]

This is what comes to mind.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ol1ge

Wow!

I do not agree with Tim on lots of things, but your response to him was unnecessarily insulting...and not the kind of reply that will encourage people to discuss your ideas with you. You ought really to tone that shit down.

In any case, on your specific comment: "I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as 'Occam's Razor.'"...
...I have argued in other threads here that it is a toss-up for me whether Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager is the most useless item ever put forward by any philosopher.

So we are generally in agreement on that.

As to your opening: In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:

An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical. — Greylorn

As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting.

More about that later, but let's take this thing one item at a time. First I'd like to hear your response to what I said in my first four paragraphs,

In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist: — Greylorn Ell

Am I supposed to expect something different, something closer to the truth, in Eastern or Southern or Northern philosophy? :chin:

Each proposes that the universe originated from a single thing or entity that cannot be identified or experimented upon, and is therefore absolutely non-scientific — Greylorn Ell

I agree that hypothesizing a god is unscientific for it, by positing a noncorporeal entity, is unfasifiable. However, the big bang theory is, I believe, the current best fit for observational data we have. It goes without saying that scientific hypotheses are all tentative and subject to review in the light of new evidence. This probably isn't your main concern here. I just put it there to impress upon you that scientific theories are not sacred cows, above criticism and so, attacking a theory in it is both expected and welcome provided you have good reasons to do so.

I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." — Greylorn Ell

I'm no scientist and so can't comment on whether Occam's razor was employed or not in the hypotheses you mentioned in your OP.

That said, I would like to offer a simple proof for why Occam's razor should be used in science and perhaps in other fields.

Imagine you have a hypothesis H1 and it consists of the following "entities":

1. Proposition q with a 2/3 chance of being true
2. Proposition q with a 3/4 chance of being true

Since H1 requires both propositions p and q to be true, the chance that both are true is (2/3)*(3/4) = 6/12 = 1/2 = 50% This theory is the simpler theory and has a 50% chance of being true.

Now imagine you make your hypothesis more complex by adding another "entity" which will be what Occam refers to as "multiplying entities". This means we now have a new hypothesis H2 with:

3. Proposition r with a 5/6 chance of being true.

What is the probability that all three assumptions for the new, more complex hypothesis H2, will be true?

(1/2)*(5/6) = 5/12 = 42%

We can see, from the above calculations, that the chances of a more complex hypothesis H2 being true (42%) is less than the chances of a simpler hypothesis H1 being true (50%).

Since probabilities of truth of propositions in scientific hypotheses are always less than 1, adding an "entity", which involves multiplying probabilities, will reduce the overall probability of the hypothesis being true.

I'm no good at math so there might be serious flaws in my "proof".

I do not agree with Tim on lots of things, but your response to him was unnecessarily insulting...and not the kind of reply that will encourage people to discuss your ideas with you. You ought really to tone that shit down.

In any case, on your specific comment: "I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as 'Occam's Razor.'"...
...I have argued in other threads here that it is a toss-up for me whether Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager is the most useless item ever put forward by any philosopher.

So we are generally in agreement on that. — Frank Apisa

Frank,
Yes, I was a little hard on Tim. Late in a bad day and too well lubricated. No regrets, nonetheless. I do not want to waste time in conversations with ignorant and opinionated people. In the absence of a forum that allowed an OP to exclude individuals from his thread, the best I can do is discourage them from posting. Tim is a sandbagger. Others are showing up here all too quickly, like cockroaches coming out of the woodwork at night.

Good that you disapprove of Occam's razor. Are you aware that it originated with Aristotle, in a different and better form, and was subsequently tweaked by brilliant nitwits like Ptolemy before William of Okham screwed it up for good? What do you think of Russell's criterion?

Pascal's Wager is far more useless, IMO, than the razor, simply because it is not used. Except that I put it to use decades ago to ace my only philosophy class by pointing out the Wager's
significant unconsidered alternative to an instructor who thought it to be a good argument.

IMO Occam's razor is a dangerous principle, because people actually think of it as a useful criterion.

Exactly which 4 paragraphs should I be responding to?

Am I supposed to expect something different, something closer to the truth, in Eastern or Southern or Northern philosophy? :chin:

Telling you what to expect is beyond my pay grade.


You wrote:
"I agree that hypothesizing a god is unscientific for it, by positing a noncorporeal entity, is unfasifiable. However, the big bang theory is, I believe, the current best fit for observational data we have. It goes without saying that scientific hypotheses are all tentative and subject to review in the light of new evidence. This probably isn't your main concern here. I just put it there to impress upon you that scientific theories are not sacred cows, above criticism and so, attacking a theory in it is both expected and welcome provided you have good reasons to do so."

I worked in astronomy for 20 years, back when the stupid big bang theory was being generated, and studied both Gamow and Hoyle's arguments before analyzing them with astronomers, often over a few beers. You are probably unaware of the flaws in big bang theory at the physics level, and the dreadful kludges introduced to kind of make it work. Study "inflation theory."

Like most people ignorant of physics, you base your opinions on agreement. Credentialed scientists have agreed the BB theory is actually useful, so you do too? Then what are you doing in a philosophy forum?

How about thinking for yourself and explaining why a so-called physical singularity containing all the matter and energy in the universe, plus the laws and principles needed to make a universe work, is functionally different from the God notion? Else, there is no value in further conversations between us.
--GL — TheMadFool

Endings and beginnings are all beholden to a flawed conception of time. Personally I feel two already extant worlds collided. — neonspectraltoast

Please go away and find a thread or forum that cherishes ignorant crackpots.

his is what comes to mind.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ol1ge — Wayfarer

Nothing comes up. Please don't waste my time with bad links. Thank you. Good luck with your writing project.

Exactly which 4 paragraphs should I be responding to?[/quote]

I just wanted your extended opinions on Occam's Razor and Pascal's Wager.

You provided them...and we seem to be simpatico about them. Amazing to me that they rear their ugly heads as often as they do on the Internet.

_________

This is a repeat:

As to your opening: In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:

An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.
— Greylorn — Greylorn

My initial response was: As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting.

The binary choice, as I see it is:

1) A GOD created everything we humans call "the universe" and everything in it. The GOD has no creator, but is an eternal being. (The fact that we human cannot discern a need for (or desire for) a universe is immaterial. We are merely the dominant life form on a rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy...in a sea of other galaxies.

...OR...

2) There is no GOD...and everything that we humans call "the universe" came into existence via an event which may or may not be The Big Bang.

We have to recognize that what we humans call "the universe" may be just a part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...and, in fact, may be just a tiny part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (We can handle the infinite regression later.)

If we can start from there...I'd like to hear the next step of your thesis.

If you deem that we cannot start from there...I'd like to hear why you suppose that.

This is interesting.

My initial response was: As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting. — Frank Apisa

I did my best to present the options in a pejorative style, so as to accentuate their faults. That does not make them inaccurate.

[quote}The binary choice, as I see it is:

1) A GOD created everything we humans call "the universe" and everything in it. The GOD has no creator, but is an eternal being. (The fact that we human cannot discern a need for (or desire for) a universe is immaterial. We are merely the dominant life form on a rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy...in a sea of other galaxies.

...OR...

2) There is no GOD...and everything that we humans call "the universe" came into existence via an event which may or may not be The Big Bang.

We have to recognize that what we humans call "the universe" may be just a part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...and, in fact, may be just a tiny part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (We can handle the infinite regression later.)

If we can start from there...I'd like to hear the next step of your thesis.

If you deem that we cannot start from there...I'd like to hear why you suppose that.

This is interesting.[/quote]

I propose that both choices are mistaken, on the grounds that they are different wordings of the same functionally identical concept-- the absurd notion that a universe which operates by the physical interaction of two different things, each manifesting, an opposing force to the other, could have arisen from nothing, without any force involved whatsoever.

This weekend I'll return to work. Before I do so, I'd like to hear your comments about Russell's criterion for evaluating ideas:

From a synopsis of an essay---- "Mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.” Or in the context of the essay—

Let's figure out how the universe began by using the real information— the physics— that we actually know about it, instead of an unverifiable hypothesis derived from the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders."

Telling you what to expect is beyond my pay grade. — TheMadFool

:ok: I wish it weren't. Anyway...

I worked in astronomy for 20 years, back when the stupid big bang theory was being generated, and studied both Gamow and Hoyle's arguments before analyzing them with astronomers, often over a few beers. You are probably unaware of the flaws in big bang theory at the physics level, and the dreadful kludges introduced to kind of make it work. Study "inflation theory — TheMadFool

Must've been awesome working with stars.

Like most people ignorant of physics, you base your opinions on agreement. Credentialed scientists have agreed the BB theory is actually useful, so you do too? Then what are you doing in a philosophy forum?

How about thinking for yourself and explaining why a so-called physical singularity containing all the matter and energy in the universe, plus the laws and principles needed to make a universe work, is functionally different from the God notion? Else, there is no value in further conversations between us. — TheMadFool

Firstly, though I would like to think for myself and learn everything myself, I may lack the skills and resources to do that. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to rely on people deemed experts in their respective disciplines.

As for relying on agreement, the views of experts gain further currency especially when they agree with each other. For me, it, to say the least, points to how reasonable a particular theory/hypothesis is.

This weekend I'll return to work. Before I do so, I'd like to hear your comments about Russell's criterion for evaluating ideas:

From a synopsis of an essay---- "Mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.” Or in the context of the essay—

Let's figure out how the universe began by using the real information— the physics— that we actually know about it, instead of an unverifiable hypothesis derived from the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders." — Greylorn Ell

Since we cannot even determine what "the real universe" is...that would be an impossible job. And for certain, at this time we cannot determine what "the real universe" is.

So there is no way to use Russell's SUGGESTION on this problem.

Since we cannot even determine what "the real universe" is...that would be an impossible job. And for certain, at this time we cannot determine what "the real universe" is.

So there is no way to use Russell's SUGGESTION on this problem. — Frank Apisa

Drat! Then I'm at an impasse. After a half-century of trying to express unconventional ideas I've learned that without some standards, some basis for the evaluation of those ideas, there is no point in even expressing them

Perhaps we can resolve this, given that you are wise enough to have seen the flaws in Occam's dullish razor. Would a history of that principle, beginning with Aristotle's original version and its subsequent revisions be of value?

I'd also invite you to re-evaluate my proposal. I did not propose that we must understand the core realities about the properties of any "real universe," nor did I use that term. Russell proposes only that when trying to understand any aspect of our universe, we utilize whatever physics we already know about it, rather than attempt to understand it on the basis of invented religious/philosophical beliefs.

I find this an excellent principle. All it says is that we know a fair amount about physics. Even if there is more to learn, why not apply the knowledge we have to the problem at hand?

In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:

An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical. — Greylorn Ell

The Big Bang is not about something coming into existence. So, it is just an original state from which we explain the history of our universe.

Must've been awesome working with stars. — TheMadFool

It was interesting. My first look through a serious telescope (36" mirror diameter) opened to a view of something called a "globular cluster," kind of a mini-galaxy tucked into our own Milky Way. Sent chills up my spine.

There were other chills. Observatories are equipped with large fans that blow outside air into the dome, because if the dome was warmer than the outside, air from within passing upward in front of the telescope would shimmer, distorting the image.

The observatory was located in one of our northernmost states. We were lucky to get 50 decent observing nights per year, and half of those were in midwinter. One night, an astronomer got his eyeball too close to the sighting eyepiece. It stuck. The instrument's equatorial drive was on and could not be turned off from his location, meaning that the eyepiece to which he was attached would continue to move at our planet's rotation rate. Luckily he had a controller in hand and was able to compensate for the automatic drive until someone showed up in the morning and poured some warm water over the eyepiece.

The Big Bang is not about something coming into existence. So, it is just an original state from which we explain the history of our universe. — jacksonsprat22

Incorrect. It is a change of state.

Change from what?

It was interesting. My first look through a serious telescope (36" mirror diameter) opened to a view of something called a "globular cluster," kind of a mini-galaxy tucked into our own Milky Way. Sent chills up my spine.

There were other chills. Observatories are equipped with large fans that blow outside air into the dome, because if the dome was warmer than the outside, air from within passing upward in front of the telescope would shimmer, distorting the image.

The observatory was located in one of our northernmost states. We were lucky to get 50 decent observing nights per year, and half of those were in midwinter. One night, an astronomer got his eyeball too close to the sighting eyepiece. It stuck. The instrument's equatorial drive was on and could not be turned off from his location, meaning that the eyepiece to which he was attached would continue to move at our planet's rotation rate. Luckily he had a controller in hand and was able to compensate for the automatic drive until someone showed up in the morning and poured some warm water over the eyepiece. — Greylorn Ell

:rofl: I should stop listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson - he glamorizes astronomy to no end. I bet he never had his eye frozen to a telescope. By the way I thought all modern telescopes, especially those used by astronomers, were computerized - no longer requiring the eye to be in physical contact with an eyepiece. I dunno. :chin:

Change from what? — jacksonsprat22

Forgive me, please, but I do not have the energy or time needed to educate philosophers in basic principles of physics. The internet, plus time and study, can be helpful in getting you to a point where this conversation might be interesting.

You will be ignored by most people here. You are a know nothing jerk.

Perhaps we can resolve this, given that you are wise enough to have seen the flaws in Occam's dullish razor. — Greylorn Ell

What flaws? What the flaws? Especially since you employ your own dull razor whenever you turn to invective instead of reasoned reply. All you do is repeatedly make clear you don't know what it actually is, or was originally for. As to the rest, if you cannot surmount this molehill, what are you worth when the way gets even a little steep?