Saibal Mitra wrote:
> George Levy wrote:
> > A philosophy professor friend of mine rejected the use of Occam razor to
> > justify the many-world interpretation. He pointed out to me that
> > classically Occam razor aims at simplifying the object, not the theory
> > behind the object.
> >
> > The way he sees it, the many-world interpretation achieves a simple
> > theory at the expense of a very large object, and therefore, cannot be
> > justified by the classical Occam razor. This point is  one of the
> > favorite criticism of the anti-many-worlder advocates. Thus Occam razor
> > can only be used if we are very clear about its meaning: the simplest
> > theory is selected rather than the simplest object.
> >
> > The history of science, and in particular Astronomy has been an
> > expansion of our horizons. The perceived world has been getting larger
> > and larger and more and more complex as science progresses. Let's be
> > clear when we talk about Occam.
> >
> > George
> >
> But then one shouldn't use Occam to justify some version of a many-worlds
> hypothesis. It's the other way around. If one assumes a suitable version of
> many-worlds, Occam naturally follows.
> Saibal

Yes it is true that a suitable many-worlds implies Occam (as per my
paper of that title, for example). However, it is also true that the
best reason for accepting an all universes hypothesis is the zero
information principle - ie basically Occam's razor again. Whilst one
might suspect a vicious circle here, I believe it's not. At very
least, the theory is self-consistent, something I expect not to be
true of any variant of Occam's razor.

Dr. Russell Standish                     Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967                    
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         Fax   9385 6965                    
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre          

Reply via email to