Jayhawker Soule

No. Please, please read the relevant history. The role of theory is to explain observation. The observed universe at that time was thought to be constant by virtually everyone in the field. Lambda was required to keep this constant universe from collapsing in on itself. Again, this was circa 1917, i.e., before Hubble, before redshifts, before an expanding universe. At that time, there did not exist a more parsimonious contender that worked (although one was developed around 1923).

The true irony here is that the Big Bang and Expanding Universe is a more complex model. Einstein used Lambda to keep his universe from imploding. Now, with its elimination, it is your affair with parsimony that is imploding. Futhermore, as if to conspire against your valiant defense of William of Ockham, Hawking suggests that a fudge factor of some kind may well prove useful after all!

Starboy

Scrambles, "simple and complex" are in the eye of the beholder. Deciding which "assumption is preferable" is also a judgment. If you do not have actual evidence to use when making a judgment than that only leaves intuition. You see scrambles no one knows how "simple or complex" the universe is supposed to be. Presupposing it is “simple” is making an unnecessary assumption about reality. Science is the human endeavor to explore and discover reality. It is very silly and religious to assume what you are trying to determine. It is circular reasoning. There is no need for it. Just concoct the theories and do the experiments. We don't need a dictum to tell us to remove irrelevant assumptions as long as we know they are irrelevant. Ockham's razor can't tell us if an assumption is irrelevant, only actual scientific research can. Funny thing is, Ockham knew this and would be much aggravated by folks like you that don't understand science.

Starboy

Scrambles

No, simple means less assumptions. I've said that over and over again. When will you understand? I think never.

I have never said anything about "preferable" assumptions. I have said that a theory based on a subset of assumptions of another theory should be prefered.

An unproven assumption.

New observations lead to a more complex theory.

Cool. When this proposition is well defined get back to me.


Scrambles

Starboy

Yes I know you have said this, and it is a trivial statement. This is not what a great deal of other scientists think Ockham's razor is. Which brings us full circle. As a dictum or policy or whatever it is, the understanding and use of it is not held in common by all scientists (certainly not by most of the great scientists of the last two centuries) and the application of it has been subjective at best. At base it is an assumption about reality that the results of history do not support.

Starboy

Scrambles

It is not trivial Starboy. You may say that the law of the excluded middle is trivial, but that does not negate it's importance. Extra assumptions can have a profound effect on a theory. Not just things like:

theory A, or

theory A + we assume everyone wears boxers, not briefs.

Althouth it can be used to prevent christians from going:

theory A + God

E.g. theistic evolutionists. God does not add any illumination at all and is not needed for an evolutionary theory.

Occam's Razor prevents both question begging and adhoc theories if followed.

You seem to be referring to the fact that theories get more "complex" over time rather than staying "simple". You are mixing up what "complex" means AGAIN. I'm finished with you.



Scrambles

Jayhawker Soule

That was not the history. The Cosmological Constant was employed to support the less complex model from imploding.
Better yet, when you choose to discuss this with more integrity and less sarcasm, get back to me.

Starboy

Ahhhhh, scrambles as I thought. This explains why you are so adamant about defending parsimony. For you it is a matter of faith. If you discount the usefulness of Ockham's razor what then will you use to defend your atheism against those awful theists? There are theists out there that are smart enough to know that the Ockham's razor defense for atheists is a silly argument. If you think that parsimony is a good reason to be an atheist then you are in big trouble.

Also scrambles, god + TOE is not an unworkable idea. It depends on what role you claim god plays in the whole scheme. If it is a deist god then based on what is currently known it is plausible. Under such circumstances to insist that god should be left out because of parsimony is just an argument from intuition. Theists intuit there is a god and you intuit there is not. My position is I do not know, but a deist god is irrelevant. If it is the literal bible god then just plain old knowledge and reason is all that is needed to dismiss the concept.

Scrambles, I think I know you. It used to be me a long time ago. All you know how to use is a hammer so everything looks like a nail. It is clear now, scrambles, that you have been using parsimony like a hammer, and apparently it is all you know how to use so you have been interpreting every possible theist position as a nail. The world is a great deal more complicated than that.

Now don’t get me wrong, scrambles, I like a simpler theory as much as the next fellow. But I do not need parsimony to defend a preference for simpler theories that work. That can be defended easily as a practical matter. So much for Ockham’s razor!

Starboy

Radorth

Really? I was thinking the reverse.

Well do tell us whether you think Paul could have actually been James, a female who wrote Acts around 150 AD, without applying the Razor in any form.

I'd like to know just how you know the JMer theories are not based on piles of assumptions, hardly more reliable than anything we find in the Gospels. (and I'm not saying either is reliable) The Gospel stories and the JMer theories are equally fantastic, perhaps.

Actually the Razor prevents circular reasoning more than it encourages it.

Rad

Starboy

Radorth, I have no idea if Paul could have been James, a female who wrote Acts around 150 AD. Why would the razor have anything to do with it?

As for JMer theories, I guess it depends on the theory. Also the number of assumptions may not be as important as how extraordinary those assumptions are and what evidence is available to support them.

Why does the razor prevent circular reasoning? Assuming what you are trying to show is the simplest argument with the least number of unnecessary assumptions. That is why parsimony is circular. It assumes the universe is simple and then favors simple explanations.

I am not saying the universe is over complex. I have no idea what overly complex would be, but I also know that the universe is not simple.

Starboy

Radorth

It proves them overly complex and based on a plethora of unprovable assumptions and therefore bogus. When you ask what a theory is based on and how you know the assumption is true, you are told to read another 20 page document to go with the 400 pages you already read which are based on more bogus assumptions. JMer theories are a perfect example of circular reasoning.

But that's OK with me, because the swoon theory, which is complex enough to explain everything without gobs of unprovable assumptions, is considered "old" here. JMer's like to substitute new bull for old truth.

It NEVER assumes anything is simple. That is your mistake. It helps you choose between two equally complex theories, and puts no limit on their complexity.

Rad