Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Valid Principle?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This sort of relates to Parsimony:

"A cause that explains an effect inside of a system, that is also inside of the system, is better than a cause that explains the same effect inside the system, that is outside the system, given that all else is equal."

For example, if something happens inside the universe, it is better to explain it in terms of something else inside the universe given that all else is equal with regards to another hypothesis which places the cause in question outside the universe.

Of course, sometimes finding a cause inside the system is not even possible. For example, if there is a drop of water in the bottom of a dry bucket, there is no possible way that the cause came from inside the bucket (there is no water source in the bucket). Therefore, not all else is equal.

Is this a valid principle?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 10:50:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This sort of relates to Parsimony:

"A cause that explains an effect inside of a system, that is also inside of the system, is better than a cause that explains the same effect inside the system, that is outside the system, given that all else is equal."

For example, if something happens inside the universe, it is better to explain it in terms of something else inside the universe given that all else is equal with regards to another hypothesis which places the cause in question outside the universe.

Of course, sometimes finding a cause inside the system is not even possible. For example, if there is a drop of water in the bottom of a dry bucket, there is no possible way that the cause came from inside the bucket (there is no water source in the bucket). Therefore, not all else is equal.

Is this a valid principle?

I'm not sure I see the value in it. If all else is truly equal, then why should we assume an in-system solution? The problem with "outside the universe" solutions is usually that they aren't equal to in-universe solutions, specifically because we have experience of things in the universe, and none outside the universe--they can't (at present at least, I suppose) ever be equal.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:06:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:00:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 10:50:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This sort of relates to Parsimony:

"A cause that explains an effect inside of a system, that is also inside of the system, is better than a cause that explains the same effect inside the system, that is outside the system, given that all else is equal."

For example, if something happens inside the universe, it is better to explain it in terms of something else inside the universe given that all else is equal with regards to another hypothesis which places the cause in question outside the universe.

Of course, sometimes finding a cause inside the system is not even possible. For example, if there is a drop of water in the bottom of a dry bucket, there is no possible way that the cause came from inside the bucket (there is no water source in the bucket). Therefore, not all else is equal.

Is this a valid principle?

I'm not sure I see the value in it. If all else is truly equal, then why should we assume an in-system solution? The problem with "outside the universe" solutions is usually that they aren't equal to in-universe solutions, specifically because we have experience of things in the universe, and none outside the universe--they can't (at present at least, I suppose) ever be equal.

Fair enough.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:11:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:00:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 10:50:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This sort of relates to Parsimony:

"A cause that explains an effect inside of a system, that is also inside of the system, is better than a cause that explains the same effect inside the system, that is outside the system, given that all else is equal."

For example, if something happens inside the universe, it is better to explain it in terms of something else inside the universe given that all else is equal with regards to another hypothesis which places the cause in question outside the universe.

Of course, sometimes finding a cause inside the system is not even possible. For example, if there is a drop of water in the bottom of a dry bucket, there is no possible way that the cause came from inside the bucket (there is no water source in the bucket). Therefore, not all else is equal.

Is this a valid principle?

I'm not sure I see the value in it. If all else is truly equal, then why should we assume an in-system solution? The problem with "outside the universe" solutions is usually that they aren't equal to in-universe solutions, specifically because we have experience of things in the universe, and none outside the universe--they can't (at present at least, I suppose) ever be equal.

I suppose I didn't use a well enough analogy with the bucket. By a system, I truly mean something with common properties throughout the system. With regards to the universe, everything in it would have physical properties (as it is a physical universe), so a cause of an effect with physical properties inside the system of things with common properties, is better than one outside of it (something that is non-physical); and vice-versa.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:18:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:11:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I suppose I didn't use a well enough analogy with the bucket. By a system, I truly mean something with common properties throughout the system. With regards to the universe, everything in it would have physical properties (as it is a physical universe), so a cause of an effect with physical properties inside the system of things with common properties, is better than one outside of it (something that is non-physical); and vice-versa.

No, I see your point. But my issue is that, in the example of universe/nonuniverse, or physical/nonphysical, we're talking about things we know exist, vs. things we are ONLY supposing.

If we KNEW nonphsyical things existed that affected the physical world (an out-system thing affecting an in-system one), then I question whether it would be valuable to assume a physical solution just because it's in-system.

In either case (supposing things we have no knowledge of, or supposing them even if we DID have knowledge of them), I think parsimony already gets us where we want to be, and I'm not sure I see where there'd be value in making assumptions based on being in/out of the system.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!