Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[jimbob]

Will said:

The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it. Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way. So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.

I thought we were discussing the complexity of life and/or the universe, not the complexity of proving the existance/nonexistance of a god-being. Depending on which issue we are discussing, Occam's shaving device will give (IMHO) very different results.

i) The arguement for a non-chance (most commonly a design argument) derived universe states that the universe is far (ie 10^40 or more) too complex to have come about by chance, so the easiest (Occam's razor) explanation is that it did not arise by chance. Therefore I believe that given current understanding of the complexity of the universe, Occam comes down on the side of "probability has to jump through too many hoops to be likely".

i.a) I'm not a astrophysicist however, so really, my opinion is only valid within the realm of molecular biology. It is my opinion that Occam's razor would dis-favor probability there as well. However Occams is NOT fool-proof as noted in an earlier posting... it simply tells the politicians were they should place their science funding

ii) The arguments to date for the existance of a deity or equivalent (and here I mean independantly of the above discussion of chance and the universe or the separate one on life) suggests that most if not all evidence(s) can be used for either side of the argument. That is to say, there is no complelling evidence for a diety, and so Occam's razor would suggest that all things being equal, don't introduce a diety because that's another level of complexity.

iii) where can one get some Occam's aftershave? I think I've got a little Occam's burn here on my pre-frontal cortex...

On a side note, I had (and in fact, still have) a few days before I have to take finals...

Well it sounds like your brain has warmed up quite well in this thread. I hope you do well on your exams!! What are you studying anyway?

And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology".

Hmmm... but it's the statement of a satisfied, well fed, man of letters, secure in his upper-class position during the peak of his civilizations' power. Perhaps a man, woman or child in Burkino-Faso would hope that there is a greater meaning to life as their family barely scrapes by on 30 cents a day?

And now to prove that I'm one of those typical north american hypocrites, I'm going out with friends to drop $13 (+popcorn) on a Star Trek Movie , night all.

-jimbob

[ December 14, 2002, 23:32: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Krsqk]

Fyron: I think some of the miscommunication comes from what I read of Hume's arguments. Of course, I just picked the first link I found.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I accept that any analogy is an imperfect representation; but since there is no perfect analogy, we have to use what there is. Otherwise, we have to throw out any philosophy built on analogy. I also agree that the design argument doesn't prove the identity, number, or purpose of the designer.

Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed.

Further arguments about evil in the world do not contradict the design argument. They fit into the "Since there's design, who designed it?" debates.

I'm sure I had more to say, but I can't remember without checking the thread again.

[Krsqk]

And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology".

Oh, yeah. Voltaire should have spent a little less of his life philosophizing, then. "Now that I've said all I'd like to say, then I have just one Last thing to say before you answer me: Let's all just go home and catch some ZZZs, and get a real job in the morning."

[ December 14, 2002, 23:55: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed.

The precise definition of "naturally" needs to be nailed down, I think.

I read "naturally" to be "without outside help".

[Krsqk]

I think it comes down to whether scientific laws are evidence of design or evidence that of an ordered world. Obviously both sides can be argued, since those laws by definition mean we have an ordered world; the question is, do they point to anything more.

That's my interpretation of "natural order."

[Fyron]

No, they do not. Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

[Suicide Junkie]

The quote wasn't "natural order", but "naturally produces order"...

Which to me says "life does quite a bit of work on its own towards creating an ordered world"

(the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

As far as we know, of course. Which is still pretty darn far: on the order of 10 billion years.

[ December 15, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]