What do you all think about it? Do you (usually) think that it is true? or is the universe more complicated then it seems. I for one think it is if anything simplier then it seems.
Maybe you would like to provide your version of Occam’s Razor, as there will most likely be several available open to varying interpretation.
How about William of Ockhams version?
“One should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.”
oh, i see your point. 
I found this on Wikipedia
I think that essentially sums up what i mean by Occam’s Razor.
Event: Mr. Body is dead.
Fact 1: Mr. Body was shot in the head.
Fact 1, is true and sufficent to cause the event.
Fact 2: Mr. Body suffered a sudden and very rapid heart faluire, upon hearing the gun being cocked.
Fact 2, is true and sufficent to cause the event.
Doesn’t your statment Frighter, get stuck on fact 1?
Now the question gets more complex, because its ethical. Does it matter if we are slightly wrong about the course of events. Here the murderer is the same, but is this always true? Is it better to be close now, or certian later? Blah, blah, blah.
The universe IS more complicated than it seems, but not more complicated than the alternative.
What do I mean by that? I think Einstein put it best, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.” If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line (or a curved one at the correct angle, if you wanna be a dick about it), then why would the universe go all zig-zag to get to where it wants to go?
It seems simple enough, but that’s because our minds are simple. Is it complex beyond necessity? No.
And remember, Ockham was quoted directly as saying that Occams razor means, “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” The world is the way it is because it has to be…if it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be the way it is, would it? Therefore, the universe is only as complex as it is, nothing more, nothing less, and this complexity is essential for this universe to be.
Yeah, there’s a lot of validity to Occam’s Razor.
Would you prefer I said that the sun rises because a giant man in a chariot carries it across the sky?
No it does not get stuck on fact 1. It is irrelevent as to what had happened before Mr. Body died as we are interested in why he died. Occams razor does not ignore facts.
In your situation wit Mr. Body we are trying to explain why Mr. Body has died. It is sufficent to say that Mr. Body died because of a sudden rapid heart falure upon hearing the gun being cocked. Fact 1 is not sufficent nor true as a reason as to why Mr. Body died. Occams razor would eliminate that fact.
And ethics do not exist. But lets not go down that road in this thread.
Eh, I normally do not double post, but this is a misuse of Occam’s Razor.
The event with Occam’s Razor applied.
Mr. Body is dead. Upon inspection of the crime scene, Mr. Body was found will a bullet hole through his head.
Hypothesis 1: The bullet killed Mr. Body.
Proof: Upon inspection of the corpse, it was found that Mr. Body had suffered a heart attack before the bullet entered the corpse, and that he was already dead when shot.
Hypothesis 1 - Proven Inconsistent.
Hypothesis 2 - The sound of the shot shocked Mr. Body into a heart attack which instantly killed him.
Proof: An anuerism was found in Mr. Body that popped at approximately .10 seconds prior to the bullet entering his head. At approximately .20 seconds prior to the bullet entering his head, Mr. Body suffered a mild heart attack. It takes .20-.25 seconds for a bullet to travel from where the gun was found to where Mr. Body was found.
Hypothesis 2 - Proven Consistent.
Had Occam’s Razor NOT been applied, one could easily have just said that elves that travel at near the speed of light teleported into Mr. Body, played with his heart, slices a vein in his brain, and then skipped deftly away at near the speed of light, completely unnoticed. THIS is a better example of not using Occam’s Razor.
Ok, just pokeing around here. And arguement is no fun if there is only one side to continue.
Let’s say that some post-human society genetically enginers evlves of just the type you describe, and sends them on time-traveling mischeif (I think physics allowes time travel at this point.) Couldn’t then the non-Occem theorist be correct?
Isn’t it possible that the truth, especially about the past, does not express itself in any current obsevable present?
And ok, I’ll accept for arguement that ethics doesn’t exist.
What sense does it make then to say we should pick one theory over another?
Do you mean one theory is more likely to be true?
Maybe to begin, the assumptions of the principle should be realized.
-That it is possible to speak of ‘we’.
-That ‘are to’ is implying it is necessary to follow the principle.
-That ‘admit’ and ‘sufficient’ allows us to either accept or dismiss causes.
-That ‘no more…than’ implies there may be other causes, however, such are redundant.
-That ‘causes of’ and ‘explain’ implies causality within ‘natural things’, which itself implies such exists.
-That ‘true’ implies the existence of truth.
-That ‘appearance’ implies justified knowledge from sensation.
So for us to begin, we must probably agree to these. I say probably, because these assumptions are open for discussion as well.
I personally think it is also necessary to make the assumption that cause means ‘explains’, that there exists a consistent reality (so nature exists, and explanations that seem to be consistent - that just work e.g. newtonian physics - is the meaning of truth). Additionally, I personally do not think ‘are to’ is an essential element of this principle, it may be more of a ‘guideline’ than a ‘governing rule’.
Right, so it seems I’ve said a lot about nothing…moving on…
Since the principle relies on us to judge what is sufficient (which occurs in any case), the only case I can consider this principle as being applicable is when one considers a derived ‘truth’ (consistent explanation) to have redundancy within the explanation. If something is not ‘true’ (not consistent), the rule cannot apply because it would not be considered an explanation (or ‘cause’).
For those who share the above assumptions, then the rule merely boils down to redundancy is unnecessary. Even then, within the connotations of redundancy, there is an element of unnecessary. The full statement is nonetheless required because it would not be possible to determine the assumptions otherwise.
Hi Rafajafar,
The universe, in itself, isn’t complex. Neither is it, Ding an sich: beautiful, bad, hot, or itchy.
Specifically, the adjectives “simple” and “complex,” describe the relative ease by which we understand things. Something that you find trivially simple might seem hopelessly complex to me. I find it difficult to get my mind 'round quantum mechanics and yet some alien race might teach QM in their kindergarten. So is QM, itself, simple, or is it complex? It’s neither; the question is ill-formed. It’s like asking, “What does the color blue sound like?”
Language permits us to nominalize - to change adjectives into a nouns - but whether or not it makes sense to nominalize is a philosophical question.
“You don’t love a woman because she is beautiful, she’s beautiful because you love her.”
– Anonymous
Whatdaya think, ye who are Persian but in name only?
Michael
Polemarchus, that’s kinda what I was getting at… the irrelevance of contemplating the complexity of the universe. There’s nothing to compare such complexity too, as even the most complex system known is still not as complex as the system that contains such a system…
Which yes, makes all talk of the complexity of the Universe moot.
Is QM complex? That’s a personal question if I ever heard one. If you ask certain professors of physics, they’ll say it’s not complex enough, if you ask others, they’ll say it’s just as complex as it should be, and ask others, and they’ll say exactly what you said… “I don’t care much for the question.”
QM is incomplete, though, so while I’ll say that universe is just as complex as it is, and you’ll say it’s an ill-formed question, I think we’ll both agree that QM isn’t nearly complex enough to describe the universe.
Yes, agreed that this is one interpretation of complex and simple (see below). Yet another semantic misconception due to the equivocation of mere symbols.
Glad you brought up language into philosophical inquiry. Your nominalization concept seems similar to how I view all formulations of language - symbols.
Rafajafar, I think you say the universe is as it is, and QM cannot describe it completely (if this is the case - I agree, though it may be consistent, and generally works). I think science agrees as well because the “theory of everything” has yet to completely describe everything (I’ll leave out whether this is possible or not). However, Polemarchus interpreted complex as degrees to which one can understand (hence the act before describing) the universe. So he may read it as: the universe is just as difficult to understand as it is (which is why he says the question is ill-informed because this barely makes sense).