(Combing text from your two e-mails, hope you don't mind) On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:38 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >>> >> > > 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 But is this not how scientists apply and use Occam today (in terms of assumptions of a theory, rather than the entities resulting from the theory)? Here is the opening paragraph on Wikipedia describing Occam's razor: "Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami); further known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. *When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.* The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian." Would you suggest that Wikipedia revise this? 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.' There are certainly many scientists, before and after Ockham who considered the utility of simplified theories a superior aim, including Newton: - "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible". Ptolemy <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy>.[2] <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#cite_note-Franklin-2> - "We are to admit no more causes of natural things other than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes". Isaac Newton <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton>. [5] <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#cite_note-Hawking-5> - "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities". Bertrand Russell <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell>.[6] <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#cite_note-6> So all, the things you seem to want would be ruled out by both Ockham and > Newton as not being deduced from the data. Have you ever wondered why Occam's razor is so successful (why it works)? It can be derived from ensemble theories. This is described by: *Ray Solomonoff:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference - Ray Solomonoff <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Solomonoff>'s theory of universal *inductive inference* is a theory of prediction based on logical observations, such as predicting the next symbol based upon a given series of symbols. The only assumption that the theory makes is that the environment follows some unknown but computable <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function> probability distribution <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution>. It is a mathematical formalization of Occam's razor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor>[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference#cite_note-ReferenceA-1> [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference#cite_note-ReferenceB-2> [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference#cite_note-ReferenceC-3> [4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference#cite_note-Hernandez.1999-4> [5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference#cite_note-Hutter.2003-5> and the Principle of Multiple Explanations <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_Multiple_Explanations>.[6] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference#cite_note-Paul_Vitanyi_p_339-6> *Russell Standish:* https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020 - In this paper I show why, in an ensemble theory of the universe, we should be inhabiting one of the elements of that ensemble with least information content that satisfies the anthropic principle. This explains the effectiveness of aesthetic principles such as Occam’s razor in predicting usefulness of scientific theories. *Markus Muller:* https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01816.pdf - Despite these drawbacks, we have arguably obtained a theory which has surprising explanatory and predictive power given its simplicity: the theory suggests partial answers to questions like “why we do we see an external world that evolves according to simple probabilistic laws and seems to have started in a simple initial state?” So the success of Occam's razor is yet another motivation for the belief in ultimate ensemble theories (multiple universes). I now have 9 reasons. 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." > > When considering the spectra of starlight, it became a simpler theory to assume that stars were distant suns, despite the implication that there would then be untold trillions upon trillions of other solar systems out there. Here we have a competition between a simpler theory (stars are just other suns, not some different phenomenon with the same spectral patterns) but it has grossly multiplied the number of entities in its ontology, and it was compared to a competing more complex theory (stars are something different from the sun) but nonetheless yielded a simpler ontology (1 sun + 1 celestial sphere) and stars are just specks of light, not whole solar systems. Do you think early scientists who made the conclusion to believe stars were distant suns were justified at the time? Had you been born in that time do you think you would be on the side of those resisting the "many suns" theory? 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.
