The nomological argument for god

[ProfessorDavey]

Occams razor cannot be a reason to accept or reject any hypothesis. It is just an opinion and a thumb rule of sorts....not some sort of an immutable law of nature.

Absolutely correct - and the very point I have made several times to Vlad. Occam doesn't prove anything right or wrong, but can be used as a starting point to whittle done a range of plausible explanations for further analysis.

The world is already proving to be much more complex than we had ever imagined. "Simplest explanation is usually the right one"...What exactly is meant by 'simple' here?

But Occam (certainly in its modern form) isn't about saying the simplest explanation is right - it fully recognising that a more complex explanation can be preferred if it is a better explanation. What it guards against are complex explanations that add layers of unnecessary complexity, without providing a more compelling explanation.

Occam (a friar) was in fact, advocating this thumb rule to defend the idea of divine intervention...

True - but I think more commonly now it is used to shine a light on contrived and convoluted explanations for natural phenomena that add in some kind of divine element which it neither necessary to explain the phenomenon nor provides a better explanation.

Of course that doesn't prove or disprove those explanations, merely suggests which are more likely to be correct and therefore the ones that should be explored more to provide evidence. And this is what is happening, whether through scientific study of the nature and formation of the universe or the process of evolution. And guess what, the explanations favoured by Occam that do not require any kind of additional divine element are proving to have huge amounts of compelling evidence in their favour. Meanwhile there is no credible evidence for the divine at all, let alone its requirement in these processes.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you objecting only to a creator God like Jehovah for example.....or are you objecting to any form of intelligent design or a multi layered universe?

In response to Vlad, who started the discussion on this thread about Occam, I am merely testing various explanations for the universe under Occam.

And, yes, both intelligent design (a kind of card dealer) and a multi layered universe, will also fall foul of Occam if they posit the intelligent designer or additional layers of universe as necessary entities for the existence of the universe, while there are other plausible explanations that do not require an intelligent designer nor further layers of the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And guess what, the explanations favoured by Occam that do not require any kind of additional divine element are proving to have huge amounts of compelling evidence in their favour.

Name one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In response to Vlad, who started the discussion on this thread about Occam, I am merely testing various explanations for the universe under Occam.

And, yes, both intelligent design (a kind of card dealer) and a multi layered universe, will also fall foul of Occam if they posit the intelligent designer or additional layers of universe as necessary entities for the existence of the universe, while there are other plausible explanations that do not require an intelligent designer nor further layers of the universe.

So you are not against your theories having extra steps or be beyond time and space. It's just that these entities cannot be personal or intelligent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In response to Vlad, who started the discussion on this thread about Occam, I am merely testing various explanations for the universe under Occam.

And, yes, both intelligent design (a kind of card dealer) and a multi layered universe, will also fall foul of Occam if they posit the intelligent designer or additional layers of universe as necessary entities for the existence of the universe, while there are other plausible explanations that do not require an intelligent designer nor further layers of the universe.

Krauss I believe took the line that everything derives from the laws of nature which are the final word. However there is the problem of what laws of nature do the laws of nature follow.

[Sriram]

Absolutely correct - and the very point I have made several times to Vlad. Occam doesn't prove anything right or wrong, but can be used as a starting point to whittle done a range of plausible explanations for further analysis.
But Occam (certainly in its modern form) isn't about saying the simplest explanation is right - it fully recognising that a more complex explanation can be preferred if it is a better explanation. What it guards against are complex explanations that add layers of unnecessary complexity, without providing a more compelling explanation.
True - but I think more commonly now it is used to shine a light on contrived and convoluted explanations for natural phenomena that add in some kind of divine element which it neither necessary to explain the phenomenon nor provides a better explanation.

Of course that doesn't prove or disprove those explanations, merely suggests which are more likely to be correct and therefore the ones that should be explored more to provide evidence. And this is what is happening, whether through scientific study of the nature and formation of the universe or the process of evolution. And guess what, the explanations favoured by Occam that do not require any kind of additional divine element are proving to have huge amounts of compelling evidence in their favour. Meanwhile there is no credible evidence for the divine at all, let alone its requirement in these processes.

So...Occams razor is just a convenient 'argument', if we can call it that.....to brush off inconvenient arguments....   It doesn't really establish anything one way or the other.

[ProfessorDavey]

So...Occams razor is just a convenient 'argument', if we can call it that.....to brush off inconvenient arguments....   It doesn't really establish anything one way or the other.

I'm not sure it brushes off inconvenient arguments, it merely allows us to develop shortlist of the most likely explanations for something for further investigation. It may of course be that all of the shortlist are found wanting and we need to expand out again to further explanations. But it provides a framework for a starting point for further examination.

However - you should note that it is really a philosophy tool, it isn't really used in science where the shortlist of potential hypotheses to be tested tends to be based on prior evidence and data.

[Sriram]

Ok....but to argue that the simplest explanation should be taken, has no basis at all.  Why should the simplest explanation be taken? And how does one define 'simple'? Simple in whose opinion?

From a theological perspective (Occam's perspective) it may make sense. But from a scientific point of view it is just irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok....but to argue that the simplest explanation should be taken, has no basis at all.  Why should the simplest explanation be taken? And how does one define 'simple'? Simple in whose opinion?

I think the point is more about not including unnecessary additional complications (e.g. entities, steps etc) - that's what Occam is all about. And in that respect it has some value. The point being that if you are adding an additional step and that there is an explanation without that step that is just as valid, then that added step is unnecessary and can be discounted, as its absence makes no difference to the outcome.

[jeremyp]

So...Occams razor is just a convenient 'argument', if we can call it that.....to brush off inconvenient arguments....   It doesn't really establish anything one way or the other.

No, it's just a way to discard unnecessarily complex explanations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Ok....but to argue that the simplest explanation should be taken, has no basis at all.  Why should the simplest explanation be taken? And how does one define 'simple'? Simple in whose opinion?

Because the principle is actually that the explanation with the fewer assumptions is to be preferred over the explanation with greater assumptions, and the reason is that more assumptions = more opportunities to be wrong.

From a theological perspective (Occam's perspective) it may make sense. But from a scientific point of view it is just irrelevant.

No, it's completely relevant for the reason I just explained: the more opportunities to be wrong are built into the explanation, the more likely the explanation is to be wrong. 

[Sriram]

Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?!  It is an assumption by itself.

There is no data to back up the idea that fewer assumptions make a theory correct. It just doesn't make sense. It depends on the nature of the assumptions. Might have been useful from a theological point of view...perhaps.

It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?!  It is an assumption by itself.

There is no data to back up the idea that fewer assumptions make a theory correct. It just doesn't make sense. It depends on the nature of the assumptions. Might have been useful from a theological point of view...perhaps.

It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has spotted the shift from number of necessary assumptions to merely the number of assumptions.

The trouble with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that you end up trying to give one anyway.

Vis naturalistic solutions these are often either wildly unfalsifiable or invite their own need for explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has spotted the shift from number of necessary assumptions to merely the number of assumptions.

But part of Occam is to determine whether assumptions are necessary or not. If an outcome can be explained just as well using assumptions A, B and C as with assumptions A, B, C and D it tells you that assumption D is not necessary for the explanation. And under Occam the explanation with assumptions A, B and C is preferred.

So realistically the notion of number of assumptions and number of necessary assumptions are both linked and a key part of the purpose of Occam.

[Stranger]

Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?!  It is an assumption by itself.

As blue has already succinctly explained, the fewer assumptions that you make the fewer the opportunities to be wrong.

It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.

There are usually far better ways to approach a philosophical argument that makes assumptions, like simply pointing out that they have no basis or that they are unnecessary. Occam is not something you can use to dismiss a well argued case and neither is is very useful in making a case, especially when it's applied in a subjective way (as it the dreadful original argument here).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But part of Occam is to determine whether assumptions are necessary or not. If an outcome can be explained just as well using assumptions A, B and C as with assumptions A, B, C and D it tells you that assumption D is not necessary for the explanation. And under Occam the explanation with assumptions A, B and C is preferred.

So realistically the notion of number of assumptions and number of necessary assumptions are both linked and a key part of the purpose of Occam.

Yes, but frequently the latter part is overlooked hence Russell and his universe that just is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?!  It is an assumption by itself.

No it isn’t. Let’s say that you apply for the job of astronaut on the first SpaceX rocket to the moon. Elon calls you to say you’ve got the gig, and explains that they’ve had their finest engineers, software specialists, aeronauticists etc draw up the designs, which have now been used to build the rocket to their exact specifications. You have been specially selected for the first launch, and you can either jump straight in and head off or, if your prefer, they’ll try a few unmanned test flights first just in case.

Which option would you select?

Why?

That’s Occam’s razor in its practical application.     

There is no data to back up the idea that fewer assumptions make a theory correct.

Of course there is. There’s data from just about every field of human endeavour.
 

It just doesn't make sense.

If you really think that, take the untested rocket option then.

It depends on the nature of the assumptions.

No it doesn’t. Any additional assumption relevant to the truthfulness of the statement (or to the rocket design for that matter) adds to the risk of mistake. Assumptions that are not relevant to that on the other hand – assuming that Elon likes cheese for example – are neither here nor there for the purpose of the truth that’s being established.   

Might have been useful from a theological point of view...perhaps.

And science, and engineering, and…pretty much every activity that entails establishing the truthfulness of something.

It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.

Remember that statement as you’re being strapped in to your untested rocket…

[jeremyp]

Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?!

No. The mandate is that if you have two hypotheses with the same explanatory power you should accept the one with the fewest assumptions.

As an example: in the Twentieth Century there were two hypotheses that sought to explain the observed expansion of the Universe: the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory. Arguably the Big Bang Theory makes more assumptions e.g. the Universe had a beginning and there has to be some, as yet unexplained, mechanism whereby all the mass came into existence. The Steady State theory assumes the Universe has always been here and matter just pops into existence every now and again at almost undetectable rates. We discard the Steady State Model though because it doesn't have the same explanatory power as the Big Bang Model. It doesn't explain the cosmic microwave background radiation and it doesn't explain why there's so much helium in the Universe. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has spotted the shift from number of necessary assumptions to merely the number of assumptions.

There is no shift.

The trouble with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that you end up trying to give one anyway.

No, the problem with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that that’s not the argument. The problem is actually that sometimes we reach a “don’t know”, and just filling that space with whatever notions come to mind (eg gods) adds no knowledge at all.

Vis naturalistic solutions these are often either wildly unfalsifiable or invite their own need for explanation.

You’ve been corrected on this countless times before so I don’t see any point in doing it again. Naturalistic “solutions” are not unfalsifiable at all. Naturalistic conjectures and hypotheses on the other hand are unfalsifiable, which is why they’re called “conjectures” and “hypotheses”.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There is no shift.

No, the problem with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that that’s not the argument. The problem is actually that sometimes we reach a “don’t know”, and just filling that space with whatever notions come to mind (eg gods) adds no knowledge at all.

You’ve been corrected on this countless times before so I don’t see any point in doing it again. Naturalistic “solutions” are not unfalsifiable at all. Naturalistic conjectures and hypotheses on the other hand are unfalsifiable, which is why they’re called “conjectures” and “hypotheses”.   

So I agree that there are no actual scientific solutions to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So I agree that there are no actual scientific solutions to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

As you know full well, "why" is an invalid question - it implies purpose or intent (which would require first the demonstration of something to have that purpose). The valid question is "how" or "by what process", and of course there are lots of questions science cannot answer. That's why so many people called scientists keep doing it - to find answers we don't have yet.

As for the origins of the universe, "god" as your answer is epistemically the same as claiming that evil spirits caused diseases.   

[Stranger]

So I agree that there are no actual scientific solutions to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

As far as I know, there are no 'religious solutions' either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you know full well, "why" is an invalid question - it implies purpose or intent (which would require first the demonstration of something to have that purpose).

No it doesn't

The valid question is "how" or "by what process",   

That is just begging the question since it assumes naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I know, there are no 'religious solutions' either.

Argument from contingency.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No it doesn't

Yes it does.

That is just begging the question since it assumes naturalism.

That's not what begging the question means, and it assumes no such thing. If you want to ask about a process ("how?"), that's fine; if you want to ask about a purpose ("why?"), then you need to establish first something capable of intent.