esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (12/09/84)
[] From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > Well, the whole idea is that you only use it when you have two theories > of equal power and which give identical results; if you don't have these, > then you shouldn't use Occam's razor. I submit that this is such a > idealized situation anyway that it's not really clear that you can EVER > use it. BTW, I for one would like to see one of these counterexamples. As I understand it the recommendation of Occam's razor is to avoid postulating "unnecessary" entities when two alternative explanations fit the data currently available. I think a good counterexample might be the new particles scientists hypothesize in order to account for things like conservation of energy. I don't see how the Occam fans can weasel out of saying that one should assume until proven otherwise that such particles do not exist. Maybe they will say that it is the *simpler* explanation which should be chosen; but I'm not sure how enlightening that is. > Science is based upon being able to construct a model of a phenomena > which has the property that whenever the same set of parameters is > input, the same actions are produced. As soon as you admit an > omnipotent God into the system, however, I don't see how you can > construct such a model Why not, is your God totally arbitrary? (See previous article.) > mathematically. If you could describe him mathematically, he would > cease to be supernatural and omnipotent. Pardon my ignorance, but why must it be *mathematically*? And what does mathematical describability have to do with omnipotence? > On what basis, then, do you believe this assumption? On what basis do you attribute such belief to me?! "Occam's Razor -- I traded mine in for a Norelco. No more 'gotcha'!" --Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.