Occam's Razor

[theleftone]

We often see Occam's Razor evoked in philosophical and scientific debates. It is often presented and received as "matter of fact" of, at the very least, the most reasonable intellectual tool to employ. It is this which lead me to wondering about the position of it within our thoughts. I began asking the following question.

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

[harvey1]

How would they justify their conviction that God was such a simple option?

Easy. The laws of physics display prescriptive behavior (e.g., entanglement, speed limit of signaling, etc.), and therefore we very justifed in saying that the laws of physics are propositions. Propositions are semantic-based requiring interpretation, and therefore by Occam's razor we are very justified in saying that an omni God exists (since the interpreter of propositions cannot be limited by the laws of physics since this is the proposition in question).

Atheists, btw, advocate a brute fact at the basis of the world. This brute fact could possibly face drastic change from moment to moment. It doesn't since there are no observed differences in the laws from moment to moment (especially unlawful changes). Therefore for every passing moment it becomes more unlikely that atheism is the case. Atheism therefore contradicts Occam's razor.

[QED]

How would they justify their conviction that God was such a simple option?

Easy. The laws of physics display prescriptive behavior (e.g., entanglement, speed limit of signaling, etc.), and therefore we very justifed in saying that the laws of physics are propositions. Propositions are semantic-based requiring interpretation, and therefore by Occam's razor we are very justified in saying that an omni God exists (since the interpreter of propositions cannot be limited by the laws of physics since this is the proposition in question).

Atheists, btw, advocate a brute fact at the basis of the world. This brute fact could possibly face drastic change from moment to moment. It doesn't since there are no observed differences in the laws from moment to moment (especially unlawful changes). Therefore for every passing moment it becomes more unlikely that atheism is the case. Atheism therefore contradicts Occam's razor.

I feel the need for a show of hands in order to see if I'm the only one left feeling less than convinced by the supposed logic of your argument here. I do understand that you are trying to do more than to simply say that God is the laws of physics, but to say that "propositions require interpretation by something infallible therefore there must be an omni-everything somewhere out there to do this" seems like an attempt to building something tangible out of concepts alone. Pardon me for my old-fashioned ways of looking at things but this obviously can't be done.

[harvey1]

I feel the need for a show of hands in order to see if I'm the only one left feeling less than convinced by the supposed logic of your argument here.

I agree with the show of hands part. Oops, looks like there's more theists in the world...

I do understand that you are trying to do more than to simply say that God is the laws of physics, but to say that "propositions require interpretation by something infallible therefore there must be an omni-everything somewhere out there to do this" seems like an attempt to building something tangible out of concepts alone. Pardon me for my old-fashioned ways of looking at things but this obviously can't be done.

Let me understand which premise you disagree with:

1. According to Paul Davies, most physicists who work on fundamental physics believe the laws of physics have some independent existence to the universe
2. The laws of physics are propositions if they exist independently to the universe
3. Propositions are semantic-based structures
4. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics are propositions and are semantic structures(from 1, 2, 3)
5. Semantic structures only have existence if they are interpreted and comprehended by an interpreter
6. Propositions require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3, 5)
7. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3,6)
8. An interpreter exists independent of the proposition and the fictional or non-fictional world(s) that the proposition refers to (defined as having "implicit freedom")
9. An interpreter of a proposition is restricted by rules of interpretation which are separate from the proposition itself (i.e., defined as not having "explicit freedom")
10. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being (God) is defined as having implicit freedom with respect to the propositions of the universe
11. The interpreter of the laws is God (from 4, 8, 9, 10)
12. We are justified in believing that God is the cause of the laws and the universe(s) that results from the laws (from 7,11)

Let me know which premises you reject and we can discuss those in particular.

In addition, almost 2.5 hours have past since I made my last post, and the brute fact underlying the universe has not changed from what I can tell. This suggests that atheism is less likely to be true than it was 2.5 hours ago...

[ST88]

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

Occam's razor is best left to the hypothesis side of thinking. It should be the first mode of inquiry when trying to figure out what's going on. I.e., the simplest solution is often the best solution. However, this should be done investigatively as a statistical method, not as a discussion of a final analysis.

In the way I understand it, Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor is meant to save time. If we were to investigate the simplest solution first with all problems we may encounter, we would come to the correct conclusion a large percentage of the time, let's say 95% (confidence level?). This allows us to go about our day assuming that the simplest solutions apply to just about everything, and we don't have to stop and figure out if something odd is going on when the evidence is mundane. It is only when the investigation of the simple solutions do not quite add up that that remaining 5% comes into play.

[McCulloch]

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

Occam's razor is best left to the hypothesis side of thinking. It should be the first mode of inquiry when trying to figure out what's going on. I.e., the simplest solution is often the best solution. However, this should be done investigatively as a statistical method, not as a discussion of a final analysis.

As I understand it, Occam's razor goes further than that. When choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power, unless there is further evidence to the contrary, operate as if the one with the fewest assumptions, the simplest solution is true.
It does not prove or disprove either of the theories, but it does provide a way to continue operating while there are multiple possible explanatory theories.
Misuse of Occam's razor from What is Occam's Razor?

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!"

Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with, we used Occam's razor to separate theories that would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories that make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory.

[ST88]

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

Occam's razor is best left to the hypothesis side of thinking. It should be the first mode of inquiry when trying to figure out what's going on. I.e., the simplest solution is often the best solution. However, this should be done investigatively as a statistical method, not as a discussion of a final analysis.

As I understand it, Occam's razor goes further than that. When choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power, unless there is further evidence to the contrary, operate as if the one with the fewest assumptions, the simplest solution is true.
It does not prove or disprove either of the theories, but it does provide a way to continue operating while there are multiple possible explanatory theories.

This is from Wikipedia:

there are three examples from the history of science where the simpler of two competing theories each of which explains all the observed phenomena has been chosen over its ontologically bloated competitor: the Copernican heliocentric model of celestial mechanics over the Ptolemaic geocentric model, the mechanical theory of heat over the Caloric theory, and the Einsteinian theory of electromagnetism over the luminiferous aether theory. In the first example, the Copernican model is said to have been chosen over the Ptolemaic due to its greater simplicity. The Ptolemaic model, in order to explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury relative to Venus, posited the existence of epicycles within the orbit of Mercury. The Copernican model (as expanded by Kepler) was able to account for this motion by displacing the Earth from the center of the solar system and replacing it with the sun as the orbital focus of planetary motions while simultaneously replacing the circular orbits of the Ptolemaic model with elliptical ones. In addition the Copernican model excluded any mention of the crystaline spheres that the planets were thought to be embedded in according the Ptolemaic model. In a single stroke the Copernican model reduced by a factor of two the ontology of Astronomy.

In other words, one model prevailed until another model came along that was simpler. The process of becoming an "accepted" theory is a tricky thing to define. I don't know much about how Copernicus came to his conclusions, but the theory -- I would guess -- wasn't actually confirmed by using Occam's Razor as a precept. Instead, it was (eventually) tested against the other theory through the observations of other phenomenae. That it explains retrogrades in a way that requires more simplicity than the other theory is irrelevant. It's not a law, it's "more of a guideline". Your list of misuses I think bears that out. What Occam actually said was:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler

In other words, start your research with the preferred theory. If it bears out, then you need not check the more complicated one. Now, we may quibble with what "choose" means. I would say that it means to do actual research of one theory instead of another; however, you might say that we should do research assuming the simpler theory is true.

Take the wet building scenario. How do we determine that it has been raining? Usually the evidence is instantaneous: it smells like rain, there are rainclouds. In order to know if the Mad Hoser sprayed the buildings, we would have to locate the hoses, him (or his team) to make sure that the hoses & nozzles were operable and had, in fact, been operated -- the operator(s) are not visible (the unseen hoser!). However, Occam's Razor says that we would need no further evidence to be able to conclude that it had been raining. We could check drying patterns, see if any of the tall buildings are wet & how high, etc, but essentially we need more evidence to conclude one theory while we need no other evidence to conclude another. Now, having applied OR, we are free to operate as if it had been raining (and in either case, we might need an umbrella). Is that a relevant distinction?

[Bugmaster]

Let me understand which premise you disagree with...

Here's my list. I disagree with the following premises (and all the claims that rely on them, which I'll omit for brevity):

0: Paul Davies is the boss of me. He's not. He may be a great physicist, but we shouldn't accept philosophical or metaphysical claims just because it is he who makes them.

2: The laws of physics are propositions if they exist independently to the universe. As far as I know, propositions are logical constructs, made up by humans, such as "A->B = true". Even if the laws of physics exist independently of the universe, it doesn't automatically follow that they are propositions (they certainly weren't made up by humans, for one). Also, even if propositions do exist independently of the universe, this does not automatically imply that all things that exist independently of the universe are propositions.

5: Semantic structures only have existence if they are interpreted and comprehended by an interpreter. This depends on what you mean by "have existence". I don't think that semantic structures have any existence at all, other than as abstractions in our heads. Furthermore, even if dualism is true, this statement could be false; dualistic properties could have an existence independent of any interpreter.

8: An interpreter exists independent of the proposition and the fictional or non-fictional world(s) that the proposition refers to (defined as having "implicit freedom"). Why can't the proposition themselves exist independently ? What makes the interpreter special ? Why can't ye olde laws of physics exist independently ?

11: The interpreter of the laws is God (from 4, 8, 9, 10) Firstly, 4 is unsound. Secondly, which God do you mean ? Jesus ? Allah ? Athena ? Come to think of it, why does this interpreter of yours have to have a personality at all ?

[QED]

Harvey has set out a series of premises that lead him to the conclusion that God exists and is the creator of the universe. I think this deserves a debate topic all of its own so I have copied his arguments to a new thread titled Is this proof of God's existence? Let's see if we can keep all the responses to his previous post over there. Perhaps Bugmaster wouldn't mind copying his reply there (I'm starting to get nervous rearranging so much furniture).