- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo, Occam's razor says nothing of the sort.
But in a Godless science. Shouldn't Occum's razor dictate that the most likely
arbitrator of our existence be ourselves?
And to the best of our current ability to tell time travel (or rather travel backwards in time which is what
we are talking about) is impossible.
Also it's not 'godless' science, it's just science.
There is no other 'science' to distinguish between.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by googlefudge🙂
No, Occam's razor says nothing of the sort.
And to the best of our current ability to tell time travel (or rather travel backwards in time which is what
we are talking about) is impossible.
Also it's not 'godless' science, it's just science.
There is no other 'science' to distinguish between.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo what is Occum's razor on existence then?
No, Occam's razor says nothing of the sort.
And to the best of our current ability to tell time travel (or rather travel backwards in time which is what
we are talking about) is impossible.
Also it's not 'godless' science, it's just science.
There is no other 'science' to distinguish between.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSo you suspect that the decision you made yesterday to post that was not really due to your own free will at the time but was really motivated by your future self or descendant travelling back in time to ensure the post was made? Or is it only religion that time travellers are interested in?
But in a Godless science. Shouldn't Occum's razor dictate that the most likely
arbitrator of our existence be ourselves?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckOccam's razor is simply a tool for choosing between competing hypothesise.
So what is Occum's razor on existence then?
It is basically the position that a more complex hypothesis must have extra explanatory
power to justify that complexity.
In other word you prefer the simpler of two explanations that have equal predictive and
explanatory power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
... In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result ...
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWow, you totally get me. That's part of the message, yes.
So you suspect that the decision you made yesterday to post that was not really due to your own free will at the time but was really motivated by your future self or descendant travelling back in time to ensure the post was made? Or is it only religion that time travellers are interested in?
09 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo we need to reduce religion to a hypothesis or else eradicate it?
Occ[b]am's razor is simply a tool for choosing between competing hypothesise.
It is basically the position that a more complex hypothesis must have extra explanatory
power to justify that complexity.
In other word you prefer the simpler of two explanations that have equal predictive and
explanatory power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occ onsidered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result ...[/quote][/b]
Suppose we do manage to hypothesise existence, what would the leading theory be?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
So we need to reduce religion to a hypothesis or else eradicate it?
Suppose we do manage to hypothesise existence, what would the leading theory be?
So we need to reduce religion to a hypothesis or else eradicate it?
No that's not it at all.
Occam's razor is a simple principle that means when you try to explain something you try
to do so in the simplest terms possible to adequately explain a phenomena.
If two explanations offer equally good descriptions of a phenomena but one is simpler then
it is much easier to use and understand the simpler explanation than to use the more complex
one and the simpler explanation is more likely (but far from certainly) to be correct.
Now religion isn't just made up of explanations of phenomena, however any time religion does
postulate an explanation for something 9almost inevitably and universally a variant on 'god did it'
we can compare that 'hypothesis' against other competing hypotheses and first check to see which
more closely match reality, and then if two or more do match reality to the best of our ability to tell
we can chose among them using Occam's razor as a guide unless and until better evidence comes along.
However as I have explained many times before "God did it" is not actually an explanation at all...
All explanations MUST explain the new phenomena in terms of things already understood otherwise
all you are doing is moving the 'mystery' from the phenomena to the thing invoked to explain it.
As we have no idea what god is or how god works and in fact many theists define god in such a way as
to make such knowledge impossible to ever attain we do not and probably cannot understand god.
Thus god is an unknown and can't be used to explain anything.
.... But even if it was, as god and his 'ways' are defined as being infinitely vast and complex, the explanation
'god did it' is by definition the most complex explanation it is possible to give.
And thus will always be ruled against by Occam's razor until and unless EVERY other POSSIBLE explanation
has been conclusively ruled out.
And even then as an explanation it is utterly and completely useless as it is impossible to make any predictions
about anything based on the hypothesis 'god did it'.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAlso, all those future time travellers will be getting influenced by other time travellers who come after (or came before).
Wow, you totally get me. That's part of the message, yes.
The reason why time travel is impossible, is there is always some lunatic that goes back and kills the guy that invented it.