On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:59 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:44 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:28 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I have no evidence that they exist now, since all I am currently aware >>> of is the record of their past existence as it is present to me now. The >>> evidence is that they existed in the past. Why is that not sufficient? I >>> tend not to believe in things, like fairies, for which I have no current >>> evidence. >>> >> >> This seems to be a trend that explains all aspects of your philosophy. >> For example, rejecting many-worlds, rejecting other universes, rejecting >> other points in time, rejecting mathematical objects. It's based purely on >> what you can see. It is a theory of minimizing the number of objects in >> reality. But to me this is not a correct application of Occam, which was >> about simplifying theories by reducing their unnecessary assumptions, >> rather than reducing the ontologies of those theories. >> > A little more research on Ockham, the early 14th century scholastic philosopher, brought the following to light. "It is quite often stated by Ockham in the form: 'Plurality is not to be posited without necessity' (Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate), and also, although seldom: 'What can be explained by the assumption of fewer things is vainly explained by the assumption of more things' (Frustra fit per plura quod protest fiere per pauciora). The form usually given, 'Entities must not be multiplied without necessity' (Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate), does not seem to have been used by Ockham." Bruce SImplicity is in the eye of the beholder. "Theories should be as simple as > possible, but no simpler." Besides Occam's tag is "Entia non sun > multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" -- Entities should not be multiplied > beyond necessity. This is certainly about the ontology. Modern tendencies > to think Ockham was talking about hypotheses is a misrepresentation of the > context of his remark > > On another front, Newton's idea was that the laws should be deduced from > the phenomena, or data. When he was unable to deduce any simple laws from > the available data on cometary motion, he left it at that, saying > "Hypotheses non fingo": I do not feign hypotheses, declaring that 'whatever > is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis.' > > So all, the things you seem to want would be ruled out by both Ockham and > Newton as not being deduced from the data. > > Bruce > > > >> So by lobbing off the assumption that some points in the past stop >> existing, you get a larger universe, more points in spacetime exist (but >> this is simpler, as you don't have to add a theory of how different events >> come into or out of existence), or with many-worlds, if you drop the >> collapse postulate, you get the same predictions, and a simpler theory (but >> a huge number of unseen histories). With this different philosophy/value >> system I don't think we will ever agree on what makes for a better theory, >> for in all these cases that we disagree, it comes down to my preference for >> a simpler theory, and your preference for a simpler ontology. >> >> Jason >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
