What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

I was recently going through a thread from a while back in which a few of us were discussing the origin of the universe. Another poster took the position that it was possible for the universe to spring into being from nothing, as nothing has the potential to "act like something", while I was trying to explain why I find that position logically untenable. One argument the other poster kept coming back to was that their conclusion was more likely correct because it posited fewer entites than mine (granted, I was positing the existence of a cosmic creator).

Here we have to remember something important about Occam's principle. Occam's principle does not tell us to avoid multiplying entities; it tells us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. Since it stands to reason that nothing could not produce something (by definition, there being nothing would mean no mechanism by which to produce anything----if there were such a mechanism there wouldn't be nothing), the postulation of something to produce something is necessary. The assumption of "something from nothing", therefore, fails to come out on top. To one extent or another, sometimes entities have to be multiplied.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #2

Post by Goat »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 7:58 am I was recently going through a thread from a while back in which a few of us were discussing the origin of the universe. Another poster took the position that it was possible for the universe to spring into being from nothing, as nothing has the potential to "act like something", while I was trying to explain why I find that position logically untenable. One argument the other poster kept coming back to was that their conclusion was more likely correct because it posited fewer entites than mine (granted, I was positing the existence of a cosmic creator).

Here we have to remember something important about Occam's principle. Occam's principle does not tell us to avoid multiplying entities; it tells us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. Since it stands to reason that nothing could not produce something (by definition, there being nothing would mean no mechanism by which to produce anything----if there were such a mechanism there wouldn't be nothing), the postulation of something to produce something is necessary. The assumption of "something from nothing", therefore, fails to come out on top. To one extent or another, sometimes entities have to be multiplied.
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #3

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Goat in post #2
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Kylie
Apprentice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #4

Post by Kylie »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Goat in post #2
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
What justifies the assumption that the "creator" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #5

Post by Goat »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Goat in post #2
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #6

Post by Difflugia »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pmWhat justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
Keep in mind as well that your own discussion is about multiplying entities unnecessarily. Even if "something eternal" is necessary (as you assert), that doesn't mean that it's also necessary that the eternal thing is sentient or hates ham.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #7

Post by Athetotheist »

Kylie wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:19 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Goat in post #2
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
What justifies the assumption that the "creator" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
I remind you that you can't apply causality to a creator without applying it to the universe as well.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #8

Post by Athetotheist »

Goat wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:47 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Goat in post #2
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
Justifying a basis for infinite regression doesn't help with the issue of infinite reduction. In other words, the universe having always existed doesn't explain why it has ever existed.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #9

Post by Athetotheist »

Difflugia wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:44 am
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pmWhat justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
Keep in mind as well that your own discussion is about multiplying entities unnecessarily. Even if "something eternal" is necessary (as you assert), that doesn't mean that it's also necessary that the eternal thing is sentient or hates ham.
I haven't speculated on the specific nature of a creator.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

Post #10

Post by Goat »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 9:19 am
Goat wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:47 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Goat in post #2
Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.
What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?
Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
Justifying a basis for infinite regression doesn't help with the issue of infinite reduction. In other words, the universe having always existed doesn't explain why it has ever existed.
No, but then again, neither does any other proposed answer. Of course, 'why it ever existed' is assuming there is an answer to that question.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply