God

Edited by BaldJean - June 19 2019 at 12:43

BaldJean wrote: it seems to me that you have a kind of odd definition of God, at least in my opinion. you seem to think that God would have to be some kind of extraneous phenomenon and in contradiction to the laws of physics or at least in contradiction to scientific thinking. but that is not so at all. somehow you remind me of a certain joke: a very pious man is out with his boat which somehow acquires a leak, and he is about to drown. being a pious man he prays to God to rescue him. a ship appears, and the captain offers to take him aboard, but he says: "no, God will save me". a helicopter appears with a rope ladder to save him; again he says: "no, God will save me". a fisher boat appears to rescue him; again he says: "no, God will save me". finally he drowns. after his death he meets God and complains to him: "I am a pious man and prayed for your help. why did you not save me "? answers God: "I sent you a ship, a helicopter and a fisher boat; what more do you want"?

You got me wrong, I'm not an absolutist and would never say that God must be this, or must be that. There are many different definitions of god, and I don't work with just one. We had a very long conversation/ semi-debate on this before some years ago (unless it was Friede), wish I could remember the thread, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough on my beliefs and non-beliefs.   Because I married a born again Christian, I often do operate in the context of what they've told me about about what they think God is, but I know many different people have different ideas.

Personally, I think that if there is a God, then God would be part of the "natural" universe or multiverse and tend to prefer the Spinoza conception of God.

God saves you for $29.99 a month.

Edited by gr8dane - June 19 2019 at 14:21

Logan wrote: No I don't, and I find your application problematic. Occam's razor is predictive, and if none had existed, none would be making the predictions and presenting competing hypotheses. When working with Occam's razor, you start with known quantities for hypotheses, and you weigh them up. Saying that "Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now" is an assumption of yours, and I don't believe that it is a good or really relevant use of the principles/methodology of Occam's razor. Does our non-existence require less assumptions at any time? Would it ever have been predictable, and to who?   Is this an anomaly? As a determinist, I think that we were bound to exist, but there is quantum fluctuation to consider, but that's another matter. I exist and expect that before that I didn't exist and at a later date I won't exist (at least in this state). I'm not sure why that must be humbling either.

Polymorphia wrote: Logan wrote: Jaketejas wrote: I appreciate your sharing different viewpoints, and that you put up with my attempts at humor. Don't you think that Occam's Razor (or the related law of simplicity) is rather limited? Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now. Yet, here we are, and it is a humbling experience. Also known as the law of parsimony. Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one that should be selected (and/or most likely). And it also relates to something I said earlier in this thread, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". No I don't, and I find your application problematic. Occam's razor is predictive, and if none had existed, none would be making the predictions and presenting competing hypotheses. When working with Occam's razor, you start with known quantities for hypotheses, and you weigh them up. Saying that "Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now" is an assumption of yours, and I don't believe that it is a good or really relevant use of the principles/methodology of Occam's razor. Does our non-existence require less assumptions at any time? Would it ever have been predictable, and to who?   Is this an anomaly? As a determinist, I think that we were bound to exist, but there is quantum fluctuation to consider, but that's another matter. I exist and expect that before that I didn't exist and at a later date I won't exist (at least in this state). I'm not sure why that must be humbling either. That quote ["Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"], while not wrong , is entirely unrelated to Occam's Razor (which I also don't think is necessarily wrong, but... I'll get to that later).  The conclusion with the fewest assumptions, in the physical world, is pretty much synonymous with the cause event which takes up the shortest length of time and smallest amount of space using the weakest force (relative to the energy of its proposed source). Imagine that you were weighing the guilt of two defendants against one another. And hour before the crime occurred, defendant A was identified in the area and defendant B was identified an hour's drive away. In this case, according Occam's Razor, it is more likely that defendant A committed the crime, even though it is still possible that Defendant B is guilty, no?* I have a point with this, but I want to know if you agree thus far.  *Obviously the evidence is circumstantial so the argument would not work in court, but "innocent until proven guilty" is only a dialectic methodological assumption based on the premise that it is ethically preferable for a guilty party to go free than for an innocent party to be punished. To boot, we are only weighing probability here, not sentencing someone to death; geez, lighten up. Edit: for precision

If you don't mind, I'm putting in the parts that you edited out, since otherwise context can be lost, and one might miss the point of what I'm responding to as this is about how Occam's razor relates to our existence, or something. For this reason I tend to quote in full. I know I didn't answer it at as well as I should have, and I'm hoping that where you are going will respond to Jaketejas' comment as well as my response to it. Hopefully he'll elaborate too on his concept.

I would be interested to know from your perspective how there can be no possible relation between Occam's razor and the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence quote.   Of course I never said it's the same, but to find no relation between the concepts? But you said that would get to that. Maybe I'm someone who find thinks more interrelated than they actually are (I have a holistic sort of perspective and am definitely a pattern-seeking animal). I expect one wouldn't make such a statement without having tried to think it out from various angles to try to find some relation. As a non-absolutist, I avoid such absolute statements. They relate to me and they both relate to what I've been saying since page two of this thread. We should not be trying to look for overly complex solutions to problems, but instead we should be looking for simpler solutions that fit the circumstances that require less assumptions and less extraordinary reasons (was it a coincidence or Divine intervention, something else....? to get to the start of this avenue). Of course Occam's razor is not the be all and end all, and is often a good starting point for our approach when choosing betwixt competing hypotheses without sufficient evidence to make a claim. To believe extraordinary claims often requires making extraordinary assumptions, so one demands extraordinary evidence. They are both approaches to seeking truth or likelihood as I see it, but then that would be a relation..

As to your example, I get how it logically follows from your prior description, and knowing that it's not enough reason to make a determination or even that I would think that Occam's razor should be consciously applied there (the razor should be used with caution as it's quite sharp), nor that it would work in a court of law, then fine I will say that suspect A is the more likely candidate based on what we know so far based on your framing, especially since to quote Aristotle, "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."


I'll probably get the quoting wrong and have to edit.

Edited by Logan - June 19 2019 at 16:37

Is that what you believe?

/

Logan wrote: No, I don't. It is a heuristic method to choose between competing hypotheses based on what data one has, and it works well as a starting point for choosing which avenues are best to investigate. It works for competing hypotheses that have the same predictions, but doesn't do away with the hypotheses that make different predictions. Between several hypothesis that make the same prediction or have the same result, the one that makes the least number of assumptions is generally best. It's rather "liberating" to be a determinist, I can blame it all on causal chains (heredity and environmental factors). ;)

That seems very useful for predicting the weather (to a point) ... and perhaps in the future volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and large meteorite collisions with earth. But, do I want to base my beliefs on that for my life and for those whom I love? I think that a philosophy like that for life could be dangerous if you approach life always thinking ... with what probability can I get ahead if I do such-and-such, especially at the expense of others. That's what I mean by that gentle whisper of the conscience that I just can't deny.

Nor I yours to be be sure! I value your thoughts and am happy that you are sharing them. I am really just trying to see, as much as I can, your point of view.

The question I wonder now is ... what is your basis for right and wrong? And, if you are a determinist, how does that work? It seems that you are now considering moral law.