> scientific theory.  Occams razor is a vague desiderata. You can justify 
> almost anything by choosing your definition of "complex", e.g.  theists 
> say, "God did it." is the simplest possible theory.

no you can't:

most relevant quote from the above post:

This lets us see clearly the problem with using "The lady down the 
street is a witch; she did it" to explain the pattern in the sequence 
"0101010101".  If you're sending a message to a friend, trying to 
describe the sequence you observed, you would have to say:  "The lady 
down the street is a witch; she made the sequence come out 0101010101." 
  Your accusation of witchcraft wouldn't let you shorten the rest of the 
message; you would still have to describe, in full detail, the data 
which her witchery caused.

Witchcraft may fit our observations in the sense of qualitatively 
permitting them; but this is because witchcraft permits everything, like 
saying "Phlogiston!"  So, even after you say "witch", you still have to 
describe all the observed data in full detail.  You have not compressed 
the total length of the message describing your observations by 
transmitting the message about witchcraft; you have simply added a 
useless prologue, increasing the total length.

The real sneakiness was concealed in the word "it" of "A witch did it". 
  A witch did what?


same goes for "god did it"


Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to