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.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. — tim wood
Sorry for the interruption but how do you know what other people don't know? — Zophie
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
Have you not noticed? I am addressing exactly your ideas. Apparently Occam's Razor is not the only thing you don't know about.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. — tim wood
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
In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist: — Greylorn Ell
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 suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." — Greylorn Ell
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
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
his is what comes to mind.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ol1ge — Wayfarer
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. — Frank Apisa
Telling you what to expect is beyond my pay grade. — TheMadFool
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
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
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. — Frank Apisa
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
Must've been awesome working with stars. — TheMadFool
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
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
Change from what? — jacksonsprat22
Perhaps we can resolve this, given that you are wise enough to have seen the flaws in Occam's dullish razor. — Greylorn Ell
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.