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.

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 #11

Post by Athetotheist »

Goat wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:21 pm
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.
Why wouldn't there be an answer?

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 #12

Post by Kylie »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 9:18 am
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.
That's irrelevant in this case, since theists have already applied causality to the universe by saying it needs a God to cause it.

My point was that if we can say, "Oh, causality doesn't apply to God," then we can just as easily say that causality doesn't apply to the beginning of the universe and do away with the need for God entirely. Since we have no need for a God at this point, then we don't need to apply causality to that God, and thus we don't need to apply it to the beginning of the universe, and everything works out fine.

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 #13

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Kylie in post #12
My point was that if we can say, "Oh, causality doesn't apply to God," then we can just as easily say that causality doesn't apply to the beginning of the universe and do away with the need for God entirely. Since we have no need for a God at this point, then we don't need to apply causality to that God, and thus we don't need to apply it to the beginning of the universe, and everything works out fine.
Science is the study of cause and effect. If you don't apply causality to the universe, you remove it from the realm of the scientific and make it into as mystical a thing as any god would be.

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 #14

Post by Goat »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:15 pm
Goat wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:21 pm
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.
Why wouldn't there be an answer?
There might be, but there might not be. Insisting that there is an answer is very anthropomorphic though.
“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

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 #15

Post by Kylie »

Goat wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:56 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:15 pm
Goat wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:21 pm
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.
Why wouldn't there be an answer?
There might be, but there might not be. Insisting that there is an answer is very anthropomorphic though.
Well, if there is a reality, then it has to be arranged in some way, right?

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 #16

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Goat in post #14
There might be, but there might not be. Insisting that there is an answer is very anthropomorphic though.
What does anthropomorphism have to do with it? If you're going to keep the universe strictly in the realm of the material, you have to assign a material cause to it. But the material cause can't itself be part of the universe, because then you would be using what you're trying to explain for its own explanation, making the explanation a circular argument.

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 #17

Post by Goat »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:01 am [Replying to Goat in post #14
There might be, but there might not be. Insisting that there is an answer is very anthropomorphic though.
What does anthropomorphism have to do with it? If you're going to keep the universe strictly in the realm of the material, you have to assign a material cause to it. But the material cause can't itself be part of the universe, because then you would be using what you're trying to explain for its own explanation, making the explanation a circular argument.
Because it's all about humanity and human perception. No reason at all for that.
“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 #18

Post by Athetotheist »

Goat wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:50 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:01 am [Replying to Goat in post #14
There might be, but there might not be. Insisting that there is an answer is very anthropomorphic though.
What does anthropomorphism have to do with it? If you're going to keep the universe strictly in the realm of the material, you have to assign a material cause to it. But the material cause can't itself be part of the universe, because then you would be using what you're trying to explain for its own explanation, making the explanation a circular argument.
Because it's all about humanity and human perception. No reason at all for that.
Is there no reason for the "perception" that 2+2=? has an answer?

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 #19

Post by Goat »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:06 pm
Goat wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:50 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:01 am [Replying to Goat in post #14
There might be, but there might not be. Insisting that there is an answer is very anthropomorphic though.
What does anthropomorphism have to do with it? If you're going to keep the universe strictly in the realm of the material, you have to assign a material cause to it. But the material cause can't itself be part of the universe, because then you would be using what you're trying to explain for its own explanation, making the explanation a circular argument.
Because it's all about humanity and human perception. No reason at all for that.
Is there no reason for the "perception" that 2+2=? has an answer?
2 + 2 is somethign that is defined. 2 + 2 = 11 you know.
“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 #20

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Goat in post #19
2 + 2 is somethign that is defined. 2 + 2 = 11 you know.
2 + 2 = 4

0 + 0 =/= 4

Post Reply