Two theories both explain data

>two theories both explain data
>"But mine is right because Occam's Razor"

Attached: Trump-dumb-face.jpg (550x445, 81K)

The simpler one that makes fewer assumptions is more likely to be right.

>Occam's Razo
not science or math

God I hate Occam’s razor so much.
Makes fucking idiots feel like they’re right.

Hur durr, whats more likely
> that the universe was created particle by particle and formed all that is and more through mere chance and that the laws of physics are a consequence that we measure
> an intelligent designer put everything in motion according to some neat rules
> checkmate atheist

That's not an Occam's razor problem, it's your own problem for mistakenly overlooking the requirement that the simpler explanation is more likely when *all else is equal*. All else is not equal in your example. It only works if you have two different explanations where neither is obviously flawed and both are plausibly correct.

In order to properly measure 'likeliness', you would need a good definition of 'simpler' that makes your prediction accurate.

What if you applied Occam's Razor to all of the possible definitions of 'simpler' that are conceivable?
You would end up with a meta-Occam's Razor that would require it's own definition of meta-simplicity for determining what definition of simplicity is best for Occam's Razor.

Simple is a relationship of all possible conditions and it is most easily understood in a sense of adding conditions.

It is more likely that god created the world than for the Jewish god to create the world.

It is more likely that the Jewish god created the world than the Jewish god creating the world and then impregnating Mary. In this sense, the truth of the old testament is more likely than the truth of its combination with the new.

Review 1:
If Jesus is to return: is it more likely to be on a Saturday, or to happen next year?

Are we assuming Jesus has a way of randomly determining when he will come back?

One or both doesn't explain the data

I didn’t make such a claim user, but I have been in arguments that lore or less go like that. Which is infuriating

Have you compared this definition of simplicity with all of the other possible definitions of simplicity?
What if there is a definition of simplicity that assigns probabilities more accurately than your definition of simplicity?

Parsimony

There isn't another simplicity in regards to this.

There is another simplicity in regards to necessary and contingent truths. There is another one more akin to simplexity. I assume you already know about those and how they do not relate to this.

>get 100 samples, gotta make a model
>colleague uses parabolic fit, it's ok
>use 100th degree polynomial fit, get 0 deviation
>get fired
>cry on chinese land measuring forum

Occam's Razor is often phrased as "The simplest explanation that fits the facts." Robert Heinlein replied that the simplest explanation is "The lady down the street is a witch; she did it."

One observes that the length of an English sentence is not a good way to measure "complexity". And "fitting" the facts by merely failing to prohibit them is insufficient.


Why, exactly, is the length of an English sentence a poor measure of complexity? Because when you speak a sentence aloud, you are using labels for concepts that the listener shares—the receiver has already stored the complexity in them. Suppose we abbreviated Heinlein's whole sentence as "Tldtsiawsdi!" so that the entire explanation can be conveyed in one word; better yet, we'll give it a short arbitrary label like "Fnord!" Does this reduce the complexity? No, because you have to tell the listener in advance that "Tldtsiawsdi!" stands for "The lady down the street is a witch; she did it." "Witch", itself, is a label for some extraordinary assertions—just because we all know what it means doesn't mean the concept is simple.

An enormous bolt of electricity comes out of the sky and hits something, and the Norse tribesfolk say, "Maybe a really powerful agent was angry and threw a lightning bolt." The human brain is the most complex artifact in the known universe. If anger seems simple, it's because we don't see all the neural circuitry that's implementing the emotion. (Imagine trying to explain why Saturday Night Live is funny, to an alien species with no sense of humor. But don't feel superior; you yourself have no sense of fnord.) The complexity of anger, and indeed the complexity of intelligence, was glossed over by the humans who hypothesized Thor the thunder-agent.

To a human, Maxwell's Equations take much longer to explain than Thor. Humans don't have a built-in vocabulary for calculus the way we have a built-in vocabulary for anger. You've got to explain your language, and the language behind the language, and the very concept of mathematics, before you can start on electricity.

And yet it seems that there should be some sense in which Maxwell's Equations are simpler than a human brain, or Thor the thunder-agent.

There is: It's enormously easier (as it turns out) to write a computer program that simulates Maxwell's Equations, compared to a computer program that simulates an intelligent emotional mind like Thor.

Who the fuck is this cuckold Occam and why should I give a shit about his wh*toid theories?

Not an explanation because witch is impossible.

>The lady down the street is a witch; she did it.
Another way to look at this explanation is that the needless complexity is hiding not in the word "witch" but in the word "it." If you say "a witch did it," you still don't have a prediction of what "it" is. So your full explanation would have to describe, in complete detail, what happened, so you can assign an antecedent to "it." (A witch can do anything, so there is no more efficient way of describing her actions than just describing, in full detail, everything that happened.)

Any theory that does better than just expressly describing everything that happened will be superior to the "witch" theory. In particular, the laws of physics are much simpler than describing the configuration of every particle in the universe, at every moment of time, for all of time, which is what "it" ultimately is.

"God did it" is always the simplest explanation.

Taking the bait...

To use God as an explanation requires that you first explain God.

Without Occam's razor there are innumerable explainations for any set of data/observations.

The OP just doesn't like losing arguments, but this is correct. If you didn't narrow down theories to those with the least amount of assumptions you invite relativism. Sure, your theory might be correct instead, but by entertaining your theory you have to look at 1000 others. Limiting your assumptions makes science works. You add assumptions as they are needed.

>you would need a good definition of 'simpler' that makes your prediction accurate.
Here,
>makes fewer assumptions

well, pic semi related...

Attached: 1505710121507.jpg (720x663, 101K)

well, pic semi related..

Attached: 1516606202807.jpg (720x405, 98K)

That is simply the statement that measure is monotonic wrt inclusion, not Ockham's razor. Also your example is essentially trolling.

if your theory is right then the other one should be falsifiable

>Integrate all theories over the likelihood that they are true
>This is literally how you do quantum field theory

>Christians on the internet butthurt about Occam's Razor for ten years
>now they use it to "prove" flat earth

Attached: 1519880953791.gif (487x560, 898K)

How does one theory being right imply the OTHER theory is falsefiable?

>ITT: Brainlets who don;t know what indetermination is

Sounds like you're the brainlet since you can't even refute them

>"Intelligent designer" is nowhere to be found
>"Intelligent designer" decided to communicate with us 2000 years ago by sending us his son and killing him (???)
>Meanwhile we can measure the expansion of the universe

Religioncucks tend to argue straw man that atheists use Occam's Razor to disprove God, when in reality, all they do is refuse to entertain the existence of such a ridiculously complex, utterly needless and laughably ambiguous concept.

That isnt even an argument, any time someone tries to throw retardation like that at you its time to tap out because they are beyond any hope.

Science purpose is to fit the experimental data, I will choose the simplest theory for doing that just because I want to do less calculations and assumptions

>b-but m-muh specific definitions
This is why everyone hate mathfags

>Two theories both explain data
>Argue Occam's razor instead of proposing a way to find the right theory

No it doesnt. It requires that you accept the existence of God as an axiom. In many cases, that is still a simpler explanation.

I meant that if the other theory was a well formed theory and also wrong, then it should be possible to demonstrate through empiricism the wrongness of that second theory. Then instead of saying "my theory is simpler" you could say "the other theory is wrong"

An intelligent design requires more assumptions and leaps in logic.

the first theory has less assumptions than the second.