4 ms·

I get why you're saying that, I don't think I explained what I was trying to say well. Occam's razor doesn't say that the universe is simple, only that of two t

I get why you're saying that, I don't think I explained what I was trying to say well. Occam's razor doesn't say that the universe is simple, only that of two theories that make identical predictions you should choose the simpler. That much makes sense on better grounds than a rule of thumb. You're correct regarding the extreme unknowns, since of all possible universe-rules most are complex. However, should a simple universe-rule correspond with our own, it is more likely to be correct than any single complex universe-rule. More importantly, the whole testable hypothesis thing? That relies heavily on the same intuition. Test results mean nothing if the universe can cheat, and in fact the universe can cheat. But we disregard the billions of possible cheating universes eating the same slice of the probability pie in favor of the non-cheating universe, should it exist.

akiselev 6y ago
> should a simple universe-rule correspond with our own, it is more likely to be correct than any single complex universe-rule. Occam's razor does not apply to evolutionary systems because it would require analyzing every step of the chain like every mutation that increased the probability of survival in the environment it occurred in. The path from archae to amphibians, for example, was very convoluted, complex, and nonsensical, let alone specific examples like amphibians that became hooved mammals that crawled back into the ocean to become marine mammals. The simple explanation would be a fish that evolves lungs to outcompete gills, not an auroch that learns to swim! Fact is, we don't even know if the universe is an evolutionary system or not. We don't know whether our universe just happened or if we exist in a universe that is the conclusion of a bunch of previous universes that fizzled out of existing or didn't support life and evolved into this one or if we exist in an infinity of universes with an infinite permutation of the laws of nature. We don't even know what "simple" really means in this context. We just don't know. O(explanation) = ??? and P(explanation) = ??? for every value of `explanation`.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  I get the sense we're talking past each other here. It seems pretty likely that's because you kindly assume I'm not a complete moron, and I'm not performing. I'm confused about the evolution example; it seems to me that evolution is something of a triumph of Occam's razor. After all, for all it's myriad complexity the simple rule of natural selection explains pretty much all of it. My gut says that the analogous component to 'natural selection' would be the laws of physics, but I might not be understanding that last bit. Are you going for more of an anthropological principle thing?
  - akiselev 6y ago
    > I'm confused about the evolution example; it seems to me that evolution is something of a triumph of Occam's razor. After all, for all it's myriad complexity the simple rule of natural selection explains pretty much all of it. The theory of natural selection is the simplest explanation to our observations of the fossil record, genetics, etc., not an explanation for why marine mammals evolved from hooved land mammals instead of fish directly - except in the most trivial sense of "it is because it is" (a la anthropological principle). Why did nature select for that path instead of the more direct one? We can't even begin to formulate that question for the universe and its laws as a whole. The laws of physics in this case are the mammals and the process of natural selection of universes (if there even is one) is a complete mystery because we don't have anything to compare it to establish probabilities. Whether that is even a valid question to ask is still in the realm of philosophy and Ivory tower theoretical physics.

akiselev 6y ago

> should a simple universe-rule correspond with our own, it is more likely to be correct than any single complex universe-rule. Occam's razor does not apply to evolutionary systems because it would require analyzing every step of the chain like every mutation that increased the probability of survival in the environment it occurred in. The path from archae to amphibians, for example, was very convoluted, complex, and nonsensical, let alone specific examples like amphibians that became hooved mammals that crawled back into the ocean to become marine mammals. The simple explanation would be a fish that evolves lungs to outcompete gills, not an auroch that learns to swim! Fact is, we don't even know if the universe is an evolutionary system or not. We don't know whether our universe just happened or if we exist in a universe that is the conclusion of a bunch of previous universes that fizzled out of existing or didn't support life and evolved into this one or if we exist in an infinity of universes with an infinite permutation of the laws of nature. We don't even know what "simple" really means in this context. We just don't know. O(explanation) = ??? and P(explanation) = ??? for every value of `explanation`.

ravi-delia 6y ago
I get the sense we're talking past each other here. It seems pretty likely that's because you kindly assume I'm not a complete moron, and I'm not performing. I'm confused about the evolution example; it seems to me that evolution is something of a triumph of Occam's razor. After all, for all it's myriad complexity the simple rule of natural selection explains pretty much all of it. My gut says that the analogous component to 'natural selection' would be the laws of physics, but I might not be understanding that last bit. Are you going for more of an anthropological principle thing?
- akiselev 6y ago
  > I'm confused about the evolution example; it seems to me that evolution is something of a triumph of Occam's razor. After all, for all it's myriad complexity the simple rule of natural selection explains pretty much all of it. The theory of natural selection is the simplest explanation to our observations of the fossil record, genetics, etc., not an explanation for why marine mammals evolved from hooved land mammals instead of fish directly - except in the most trivial sense of "it is because it is" (a la anthropological principle). Why did nature select for that path instead of the more direct one? We can't even begin to formulate that question for the universe and its laws as a whole. The laws of physics in this case are the mammals and the process of natural selection of universes (if there even is one) is a complete mystery because we don't have anything to compare it to establish probabilities. Whether that is even a valid question to ask is still in the realm of philosophy and Ivory tower theoretical physics.