Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Occams Razor

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 3:18:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
For those of you who don't know what Occams razor is, it's the theory when given an unexplained phenomenon with two or more hypothetical answers, the simplest one is probably correct.

One of example of it's truth was crop circles. It was believe it was causes by UFO's or Hoaxes by people. Of course, the assertion of UFO's meant that aliens exist, and they have advanced technology. On the other hand, you just had to believe in the humorous side of human nature. Of course, after a round of excuses, it was found it was a group of hoaxes.

What y'all think about it?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 3:52:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is one of the most powerful logical tools known to man.
It is also one of the most misused.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 9:15:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kant had a problem with it, so Occam must've got something right.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 9:16:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/29/2009 9:15:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Kant had a problem with it, so Occam must've got something right.

I lol'd.
Though a bit off topic, what's wrong with Kant?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 9:26:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He says humans Kant know anything, which means we have to take it on faith.

But faith Kant do anything.

Kant Kant take you anywhere but to a dead end, and, since philosophy is needed for human lifes, to an end where you are dead. He doesn't even take a scenic route.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 9:27:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
*lives*
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2009 7:48:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
*aside* Kant is indeed retarded.

O's Razor is indeed helpful, if not a bit common sense.
There's a certain likelihood that all the assumptions for a position are true. If two positions have the same amount of evidence before these assumptions are taken into account, then of course the position whose assumptions are more likely true is also more likely true, since asserting the truth of a position also necessarily asserts that the necessary assumptions are also true.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2009 8:00:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't consider O R to be a maxim; however, it is right.

maxim- an expression of a general truth or principle http://dictionary.reference.com...

There are counter-examples.

For example: Why is the sky blue?
Cause God sometimes feels blue

Because of the way different frequencies refract, as in a prism, blue is the colour that reaches the earth's surface.

The simplest answer is not always "probably" right.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2009 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Infinite=/= simple.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2009 9:00:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/29/2009 3:18:33 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
For those of you who don't know what Occams razor is, it's the theory when given an unexplained phenomenon with two or more hypothetical answers, the simplest one is probably correct.

One of example of it's truth was crop circles. It was believe it was causes by UFO's or Hoaxes by people. Of course, the assertion of UFO's meant that aliens exist, and they have advanced technology. On the other hand, you just had to believe in the humorous side of human nature. Of course, after a round of excuses, it was found it was a group of hoaxes.

What y'all think about it?

That's not the right way of stating Occam's Razor. The simplest way I quote it is as follows:

"All else being equal, the simpler explanation is the more probable"
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2009 9:11:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Course, in any case, there's always the option of replacing your medieval razor with an electric one, making other things unequal and getting a far better conclusion :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2009 9:29:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A good way to rephrase it: (helpful when it's unclear what is simplest)

Do not create unnecessary entities.

In the OP's example, the unnecessary entity is aliens.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2009 8:01:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/3/2009 9:29:49 PM, MTGandP wrote:
A good way to rephrase it: (helpful when it's unclear what is simplest)

Do not create unnecessary entities.

In the OP's example, the unnecessary entity is aliens.

That's much simpler.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 8:01:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/3/2009 8:00:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't consider O R to be a maxim; however, it is right.

maxim- an expression of a general truth or principle http://dictionary.reference.com...

There are counter-examples.

For example: Why is the sky blue?
Cause God sometimes feels blue

Because of the way different frequencies refract, as in a prism, blue is the colour that reaches the earth's surface.

The simplest answer is not always "probably" right.

"Because God sometimes feels blue" is not the simplest answer according to OR. It doesn't mean the explanation that sounds the simplest, but one that has less assumptions.

The explanation that "God sometimes feels blue" has many hidden assumptions. It assumes God exists. It assumes this entity has "infinite characteristics". It assumes this entity can feel. It assumes this entity can feel blue, also known as sad. The list goes on.

On the other hand, the second explanation can be scientifically affirmed. We know frequencies exist. We know they refract. Etc.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 8:21:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 8:01:12 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 7/3/2009 8:00:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't consider O R to be a maxim; however, it is right.

maxim- an expression of a general truth or principle http://dictionary.reference.com...

There are counter-examples.

For example: Why is the sky blue?
Cause God sometimes feels blue

Because of the way different frequencies refract, as in a prism, blue is the colour that reaches the earth's surface.

The simplest answer is not always "probably" right.

"Because God sometimes feels blue" is not the simplest answer according to OR. It doesn't mean the explanation that sounds the simplest, but one that has less assumptions.

The explanation that "God sometimes feels blue" has many hidden assumptions. It assumes God exists. It assumes this entity has "infinite characteristics". It assumes this entity can feel. It assumes this entity can feel blue, also known as sad. The list goes on.

On the other hand, the second explanation can be scientifically affirmed. We know frequencies exist. We know they refract. Etc.

That's why I like "don't create unnecessary entities" better. It leaves less room for confusion.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 3:49:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 8:21:19 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/5/2009 8:01:12 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 7/3/2009 8:00:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't consider O R to be a maxim; however, it is right.

maxim- an expression of a general truth or principle http://dictionary.reference.com...

There are counter-examples.

For example: Why is the sky blue?
Cause God sometimes feels blue

Because of the way different frequencies refract, as in a prism, blue is the colour that reaches the earth's surface.

The simplest answer is not always "probably" right.

"Because God sometimes feels blue" is not the simplest answer according to OR. It doesn't mean the explanation that sounds the simplest, but one that has less assumptions.

The explanation that "God sometimes feels blue" has many hidden assumptions. It assumes God exists. It assumes this entity has "infinite characteristics". It assumes this entity can feel. It assumes this entity can feel blue, also known as sad. The list goes on.

On the other hand, the second explanation can be scientifically affirmed. We know frequencies exist. We know they refract. Etc.

That's why I like "don't create unnecessary entities" better. It leaves less room for confusion.

Agreed. It makes me understand the concept more. "Simple" can have so many meanings.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2009 7:04:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
So how about applying that ol' razor to the origins of life issue?
Which is the simpler, more obvious answer?

God did it!

1Corinthians1:20
Where is the wise?
Where is the scribe?
Where is the disputer of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 8:55:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This theory is fun to use outside of it's element, but let's not forget where we are taking it from. Physics is highly quantitative, so it's not hard to get mixed up on what exactly is "simple" when your not dealing strictly with mathematics. Most human actions have a certain level of uncertainty, which makes the utility of OR decrease significantly for social sciences. I would imagine that, technically speaking, OR is useless for philosophy. Does God exist? If you ask DATCMOTO, he would say it is much simpler for God to have done it all, and we can move on to a different subject. Pretty simple. If you ask me, it is simpler to let the physical laws of the universe play out, and not have to try and imagine an omnipotent being. The physics concept of OR cannot deal with supernatural equations.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2009 6:49:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 8:55:51 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
This theory is fun to use outside of it's element, but let's not forget where we are taking it from. Physics is highly quantitative, so it's not hard to get mixed up on what exactly is "simple" when your not dealing strictly with mathematics. Most human actions have a certain level of uncertainty, which makes the utility of OR decrease significantly for social sciences. I would imagine that, technically speaking, OR is useless for philosophy. Does God exist? If you ask DATCMOTO, he would say it is much simpler for God to have done it all, and we can move on to a different subject. Pretty simple. If you ask me, it is simpler to let the physical laws of the universe play out, and not have to try and imagine an omnipotent being. The physics concept of OR cannot deal with supernatural equations.

OR.. It's much SIMPLER for you to carry on believing you're a 'good' person and much SIMPLER not to face the fact that you're a SINNER bound for an eternal separation from ALL that is Good and Holy.
Simpler.. I guess.

Proverbs9:10
The
F
E
A
R
of the Lord is the
B
E
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
of wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One
I
S
understanding.
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 8:06:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Universe:

Christians affirm that:

- An omnipotent, omni benevolent and omniscient being exists.
- He then proceeded to create an ever expanding universe.
- He has plans for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING

Evolutionists affirm that:

- The laws of physics are true.

Evolutionists win.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 8:09:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/8/2009 7:04:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So how about applying that ol' razor to the origins of life issue?
Which is the simpler, more obvious answer?

God did it!

Two words: unnecessary entity. The problem with "simple" is that guys like DATC think God is simple.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 9:15:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/29/2009 3:52:20 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It is one of the most powerful logical tools known to man.
It is also one of the most misused.

Well said. I agree.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 6:49:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 8:06:51 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The Universe:

Christians affirm that:

- An omnipotent, omni benevolent and omniscient being exists.
- He then proceeded to create an ever expanding universe.
- He has plans for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING

Evolutionists affirm that:

- The laws of physics are true.

Evolutionists win.

I hope you know that both sides are much more complicated than that.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:34:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 8:09:41 AM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/8/2009 7:04:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So how about applying that ol' razor to the origins of life issue?
Which is the simpler, more obvious answer?

God did it!

Two words: unnecessary entity. The problem with "simple" is that guys like DATC think God is simple.

As high as the heavens (stars etc) are to the earth, THAT'S how high His ways are to mine. His thought are NOT my thoughts.
Saying that 'God created everything' is a simple explation is NOT, in anyway, remotely, the same as saying God Himself is simple.
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 10:53:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:34:21 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/24/2009 8:09:41 AM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/8/2009 7:04:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So how about applying that ol' razor to the origins of life issue?
Which is the simpler, more obvious answer?

God did it!

Two words: unnecessary entity. The problem with "simple" is that guys like DATC think God is simple.

As high as the heavens (stars etc) are to the earth, THAT'S how high His ways are to mine. His thought are NOT my thoughts.
Saying that 'God created everything' is a simple explation is NOT, in anyway, remotely, the same as saying God Himself is simple.

(I'm going to assume you believe the earth is 6,00o years old)

YEC Christians:

- The world has populated from a few humans (after a worldwide flood) in 4000 years.
- A God designed everything, even stalactites and sandstone which seriously dissproves his work


Evolutionists:


- The speed of light is true,

Occams Razor prevails, even though the answer is clear.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:23:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 10:53:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:34:21 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/24/2009 8:09:41 AM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/8/2009 7:04:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So how about applying that ol' razor to the origins of life issue?
Which is the simpler, more obvious answer?

God did it!

Two words: unnecessary entity. The problem with "simple" is that guys like DATC think God is simple.

As high as the heavens (stars etc) are to the earth, THAT'S how high His ways are to mine. His thought are NOT my thoughts.
Saying that 'God created everything' is a simple explation is NOT, in anyway, remotely, the same as saying God Himself is simple.

(I'm going to assume you believe the earth is 6,00o years old)

YEC Christians:

- The world has populated from a few humans (after a worldwide flood) in 4000 years.
- A God designed everything, even stalactites and sandstone which seriously dissproves his work

Stalactiites can form in a few years: Again, you don't know what you are talking about.


Evolutionists:


- The speed of light is true,

Occams Razor prevails, even though the answer is clear.

Confused.com
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:28:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:23:57 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/28/2009 10:53:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:34:21 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/24/2009 8:09:41 AM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/8/2009 7:04:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So how about applying that ol' razor to the origins of life issue?
Which is the simpler, more obvious answer?

God did it!

Two words: unnecessary entity. The problem with "simple" is that guys like DATC think God is simple.

As high as the heavens (stars etc) are to the earth, THAT'S how high His ways are to mine. His thought are NOT my thoughts.
Saying that 'God created everything' is a simple explation is NOT, in anyway, remotely, the same as saying God Himself is simple.

(I'm going to assume you believe the earth is 6,00o years old)

YEC Christians:

- The world has populated from a few humans (after a worldwide flood) in 4000 years.
- A God designed everything, even stalactites and sandstone which seriously dissproves his work

Stalactiites can form in a few years: Again, you don't know what you are talking about.


Evolutionists:


- The speed of light is true,

Occams Razor prevails, even though the answer is clear.

Confused.com

Lol, when we look into space, we see images of planets. Because they take time to travel, the further we see, the younger they are. AND, becuase the images are reflected light, they have taken thousands, if not millions, of light years to reach us. Ergo, we can see our universe far older than 6,000 years.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:32:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:28:58 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Lol, when we look into space, we see images of planets. Because they take time to travel, the further we see, the younger they are. AND, becuase the images are reflected light, they have taken thousands, if not millions, of light years to reach us. Ergo, we can see our universe far older than 6,000 years.

Facepalm.jpg

Light-years is distance. The fact that we see images from >6000 light years away shows that the universe is more than 6000 years old, since an image from X light years away only reaches us after X years.