2 ms·

I entered this discussion merely to point out what I saw as a problem with an example that you chose to make your point with. If you think that leads to a pedan

I entered this discussion merely to point out what I saw as a problem with an example that you chose to make your point with. If you think that leads to a pedantic debate, then maybe it wasn't a good example to begin with. So long as you continue to insist, as you do in your last sentence above, that this is an appropriate analogy for the point you are trying to make, I will regard it as a weakness in your position. To put that aside and address your larger point, then if we had just one candidate that provides "an explanation for BHIP that does not introduce any new assumptions or very small assumptions to existing theory", then it would indeed be a plausible candidate explanation. That is not, however, the situation we are faced with: Hossenfelder's argument is that there are many equally plausible (and equally speculative) ways in which the paradox could be resolved (though none that "[do] not introduce any new assumptions or very small assumptions to existing theory"), with no prospect of us getting the data to choose between them (note that Hossenfelder is highly skeptical of choosing between theories on the basis of 'beauty', 'elegance' or other subjective distinctions[1]. As I explained above, Occam's razor is not in this category.) As far as I know, this argument might fail if some data from a seemingly unrelated field supports just one of the candidate resolutions of the paradox. This might be the point you are trying to make, but if so, your "gravity might fail" analogy isn't helping, as we are not currently faced with multiple, equally-plausible theories of gravity, one of which will be preferred if gravity stops working in 1000 years (speculating that it might do so is neither an observation nor a theory of gravity, it's just speculation.) [1] https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252 https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/04...

whimsicalism 6y ago
The pedantic debate is because you refuse to acknowledge Occam's Razor has anything to do with the simplicity of a theory, not related to the specific example I constructed. > Hossenfelder's argument is that there are many equally plausible (and equally speculative) ways This is just not true. Most of the resolutions of the past required new conjectures like EP=EPR, whereas recent solutions rely on newer sort of uses of a path integral, but are still built up from basic QFT+GR. Claiming agnosticism between those two theories is discarding Occam's Razor entirely, as the latter relies on constructing way less strong of assumptions and provides a believable mechanism for information preservation.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  I have explained why Occam's razor is not a simplistic and subjective matter of preferring simple solutions, and your only response to that is to keep saying I'm wrong, without saying why. That is one factor in keeping this discussion going. The other thing was your insistence that your "gravity might fail" scenario is a relevant analogy; at least you did not continue pushing that view in your latest post. >> Hossenfelder's argument is that there are many equally plausible (and equally speculative) ways > This is just not true. Most of the resolutions of the past required new conjectures like EP=EPR, whereas recent solutions rely on newer sort of uses of a path integral, but are still built up from basic QFT+GR. As far as I can tell, what I wrote here seems to reflect what Hossenfelder is saying in the article. Here, for the first time, you seem to be making a reasonable argument that the specific hypotheses are not, in fact, all alike, and that they may differ in a way that at least opens up the possibility of applying Occam's razor correctly - i.e. by rejecting any that make unnecessarily broad or strong assumptions. This brings us to Hossenfelder's follow-on point: we're going to need more data in order to figure out which, if any, is correct [1]. Without more data, neither Occam's razor nor any other principle (and certainly not subjective simplicity) is sufficient to do this - the most you can do is have a preference, based possibly on which you think is least likely to run into problems with Occam's razor. That's not enough to turn a hypothesis into a theory. This is the point that you started this thread by objecting to, and I do not think you have yet made a strong enough case to overthrow it, though you are now making better arguments than before. [1] I'm not sure about Hossenfelder's apparent claim that this data can only come from observing black-hole decay, but that's a separate matter.

whimsicalism 6y ago

The pedantic debate is because you refuse to acknowledge Occam's Razor has anything to do with the simplicity of a theory, not related to the specific example I constructed. > Hossenfelder's argument is that there are many equally plausible (and equally speculative) ways This is just not true. Most of the resolutions of the past required new conjectures like EP=EPR, whereas recent solutions rely on newer sort of uses of a path integral, but are still built up from basic QFT+GR. Claiming agnosticism between those two theories is discarding Occam's Razor entirely, as the latter relies on constructing way less strong of assumptions and provides a believable mechanism for information preservation.

mannykannot 6y ago
I have explained why Occam's razor is not a simplistic and subjective matter of preferring simple solutions, and your only response to that is to keep saying I'm wrong, without saying why. That is one factor in keeping this discussion going. The other thing was your insistence that your "gravity might fail" scenario is a relevant analogy; at least you did not continue pushing that view in your latest post. >> Hossenfelder's argument is that there are many equally plausible (and equally speculative) ways > This is just not true. Most of the resolutions of the past required new conjectures like EP=EPR, whereas recent solutions rely on newer sort of uses of a path integral, but are still built up from basic QFT+GR. As far as I can tell, what I wrote here seems to reflect what Hossenfelder is saying in the article. Here, for the first time, you seem to be making a reasonable argument that the specific hypotheses are not, in fact, all alike, and that they may differ in a way that at least opens up the possibility of applying Occam's razor correctly - i.e. by rejecting any that make unnecessarily broad or strong assumptions. This brings us to Hossenfelder's follow-on point: we're going to need more data in order to figure out which, if any, is correct [1]. Without more data, neither Occam's razor nor any other principle (and certainly not subjective simplicity) is sufficient to do this - the most you can do is have a preference, based possibly on which you think is least likely to run into problems with Occam's razor. That's not enough to turn a hypothesis into a theory. This is the point that you started this thread by objecting to, and I do not think you have yet made a strong enough case to overthrow it, though you are now making better arguments than before. [1] I'm not sure about Hossenfelder's apparent claim that this data can only come from observing black-hole decay, but that's a separate matter.