3 ms·

> Occam's razor says that we should give more credence to the simpler theory, not the more commonsensical one Yes, and I find Occam's razor itself to be common

by aneth 14y ago

> Occam's razor says that we should give more credence to the simpler theory, not the more commonsensical one Yes, and I find Occam's razor itself to be common sense, which is what my point was. If a theory seems to reflect more closely observable reality, I would bias my investigations toward that theory over one the projects something non-sensical. > I hope you don't also go around telling biologists that its absurd that we're descended from Apes, or astronomers that its absurd that the Earth goes around the sun... Evolution and Earth's orbit are explanations for observable reality. They do not lead us to conclude outlandish things that are conveniently not observable. I am not saying Boltzmann was necessarily wrong, only that common sense should direct us to look for what we are missing, and for theories that direct us toward more sensible scenarios. Sure Boltzmann, could be right. I find the Bible more compelling, and Bolzmann's theory doesn't seem to preclude them both being correct.

Symmetry 14y ago
> If a theory seems to reflect more closely observable reality, I would bias my investigations toward that theory over one the projects something non-sensical. I don't understand your basis for saying one theory matches observable reality more closely than the other. I mean, have you observed the heat death of the universe? And how can you say that what is being projected is non-sensical, except to the extent that people reliably find arguments involving infinity hard to make sense out of? It might be that theory of evolution and the heliocentric theory purport to explain the world we observe, but the much more sensible seeming theories that they replaced also purported to explain the world. As for the Bible being more compelling, well, I'm not surprised since many other people who prize gut feelings over abstract reasoning feel the same way.
- aneth 14y ago
  The theory is based in observable reality (since there is nothing else to base a theory on,) so when it projects something that does not explain or seem compatible with observable reality, it calls itself into question. There is being open-minded, and there is intellectual masturbation. If you observe something in the sky that is flying in quick irregular movements, you can derive all sorts of interesting, possible, perhaps even correct theories about new NSA drones, perhaps based on massive amounts of "inside information" and other evidence. There is some fun and value in this, and on rare occasions such thinking may be correct. It's not wrong to speculate wildly, but it's also not likely to yield the answer unless you constrain your answer to something with reasonable implications - such as that you are not on the Truman Show, because while that may be true, I think most of us agree it's less likely than other theories. Most of us would conclude it's probably a bird, or a plastic bag, and most of the time we'd be right. All scientific theories are based at some level on observable reality, and an infinite number of theories could be derived from a given observable reality. Evolution and solar orbit had the benefit of providing simple explanations with observable and provable implications. Boltzmann wants us to believe that every possible reality exists simply because it is the logical result of some of the leading theories of the day. That does more for me to disprove the theories than prove their implication. If one has two theories: theory A implies all possibilities exist in infinite time, theory B implies one reality exists in a single universe - all other things being equal, which one would you find more likely to be true? I'd say we need a theory B.

by aneth 14y ago

Symmetry 14y ago

> If a theory seems to reflect more closely observable reality, I would bias my investigations toward that theory over one the projects something non-sensical. I don't understand your basis for saying one theory matches observable reality more closely than the other. I mean, have you observed the heat death of the universe? And how can you say that what is being projected is non-sensical, except to the extent that people reliably find arguments involving infinity hard to make sense out of? It might be that theory of evolution and the heliocentric theory purport to explain the world we observe, but the much more sensible seeming theories that they replaced also purported to explain the world. As for the Bible being more compelling, well, I'm not surprised since many other people who prize gut feelings over abstract reasoning feel the same way.

aneth 14y ago
The theory is based in observable reality (since there is nothing else to base a theory on,) so when it projects something that does not explain or seem compatible with observable reality, it calls itself into question. There is being open-minded, and there is intellectual masturbation. If you observe something in the sky that is flying in quick irregular movements, you can derive all sorts of interesting, possible, perhaps even correct theories about new NSA drones, perhaps based on massive amounts of "inside information" and other evidence. There is some fun and value in this, and on rare occasions such thinking may be correct. It's not wrong to speculate wildly, but it's also not likely to yield the answer unless you constrain your answer to something with reasonable implications - such as that you are not on the Truman Show, because while that may be true, I think most of us agree it's less likely than other theories. Most of us would conclude it's probably a bird, or a plastic bag, and most of the time we'd be right. All scientific theories are based at some level on observable reality, and an infinite number of theories could be derived from a given observable reality. Evolution and solar orbit had the benefit of providing simple explanations with observable and provable implications. Boltzmann wants us to believe that every possible reality exists simply because it is the logical result of some of the leading theories of the day. That does more for me to disprove the theories than prove their implication. If one has two theories: theory A implies all possibilities exist in infinite time, theory B implies one reality exists in a single universe - all other things being equal, which one would you find more likely to be true? I'd say we need a theory B.