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'

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.