It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Introduction/Occam's Razor

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Hello ATS! I have been reading here for a while and finally came up with something that I would like to see some opinions on as this particular topic has (IMHO) no right or wrong answer. Here goes with my question:

Given Occam's Razor is the theory that the simplest answer is most often the correct one, and ignoring the "does God exist or not" argument, which would be the simplest answer?

God created the universe and wrote the "laws" by which the universe works
OR
The universe exists as it is, and just follows the "laws" of gravity, light, etc.

To elaborate a bit more on each side as to why this got me really thinking:
If God created the universe, who is God, what was his purpose in creating the universe, is the universe itself actually God, is God outside our universe, what is outside our universe?

If the universe exists as it is, what set up the laws as they are, which laws can be broken, is our universe all there is, is our solar system actually one "universe" and operated by a slightly different set of laws that the next "universe"?

Those questions and curiosities are what makes this "simplest answer", to me, not so simple. This is my first post, so if this belongs elsewhere, administrators, please place it there.

This post is not to disrespect God for those who believe nor is it to push the belief of God on anyone... just looking at the "simplest answer" component of this thought.

Thanks for your insightful perspectives and I look forward to seeing where this goes.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MordosKull
 
Welcome and enjoy the site.

I used to use Occam's Razor but my wife got me a Norelco for Christmas.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Lol, that's funny, I like a good portion of the humor I see on the site. Thanks for the chuckle.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MordosKull
 


If your argument is really about the validity of Occam's Ranzor and not trying to disprove God, well, you have chosen an unanswerable and decidedly biased position to pose your argument. Let us shift that argument to another aspect that is more on target.

Carl Sagan was keen on using the Occam's Razor argument to deny UFOs. That was and is a spurious argument to deny something that shows validity in thousands of data records, but he did it anyway because it was the only tool in his scientific backpack that he could pull forth. And if one trusted the sacred halls of ivy as always being exactly correct and precise in their guesstiments then, you had no choice but to shrug and say, "I suppose they are right. can Carl Sagan, the social gadfly scientist on Johnny Carson be WRONG?"

My real counter argument to yours is that Occam's Razor is built around natural science and what is know at any particular time. If for example, if no scientist ever saw a bird, an insect, or an aircraft fly, there is no way they would believe that such a phenomeana such as "flying" was possible. They would have no grounds for suspecting as much because nature, gravity, as they understood it, simply would not allow it, and that was exactly why such activities were never seen, Their "proof" of that application of Occam's Razor was right there in front of everyone's eyes and hardly could be argued against.

The key fallacy of Occam's Razor that it literally believes it own stuff. In other words, in what it knows only. If scientists don't know that X is possible then of course it is not possible and they'll come up with another solution. With UFOs, that solution was and continues to be denial and any other explanation they can imagine. To suggest other live forms out there coming here in marvelous ships was idiotic and so much more complicated explanation than saying, "No."

So here's the point, UFOs are beyond the pale of the natural operations of everyday Nature as we accept it. But the good news if you haven't noticed, is that Science is bring us around to realizing that eventually we might want accept UFOs as being exactly what they appear to be. But first they must convince themselves of the absolute truth of that.

I am not a believer in the concept of God. I do believe that the Universe is--for the want of a better word--sentient. Deep meditation tells me that. Such a determination, once it reaches enough traction in the general population and scientific circles, will probably result in the rebirth of the God concept as simply a reference to the living Universe. 'Course, that won't be too far off of what most religions believe at their core, is it?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I think I see where you're coming from... granted, my request for personal opinions was based on hypotheticals... I do think I understand. You're saying Occam's Razor is based on things that we know or things that are very probable.
Using a death scenario... someone is found dead in their apartment with a gun in their hand, wound to the head, no signs of breaking and entry, and all entrances are locked. You could determine that either it was a suicide or that someone broke in, killed the person, staged it as a suicide and got out while locking the entry/exit way on their way out... naturally you'd suspect the suicide as it's more logical and easier to explain.
I guess I should have read up on the origin and details of Occam's Razor a little more, but I presumed that the users of ATS (no offense intended) would be able to understand the reference and post opinions as that's more what I was looking for.
So considering I started my thread with faulty logic and hopefully having cleared that up, I would like to know what is your opinion on what would be the "easiest answer" as that's really more what I'm looking for.
I do want to tell you thank you for expanding my understanding of Occam's Razor, and I will certainly be looking more into it. I hope I haven't offended you as that is certainly not my intent; I'm here to be a bit more enlightened and expand my mind like most others on this site. Thanks for your reply.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   


Given Occam's Razor is the theory that the simplest answer is most often the correct one
reply to post by MordosKull
 


Your description of Occam’s Razor is actually incorrect, it is a common inaccuracy to describe it as simply stating the “simplest answer is the right one” rather Occam’s Razor states that it is the answer with the least assumptions that is usually the right one. It is a principle I use quite a lot on ATS along with a few others as it can be used quickly to help debunk a theory, for that reason most people on ATS see the words Occam’s Razor and scream DISINFO AGENT as loud as they can.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Ohhh... so essentially I have gone and "
" on this question by simply putting the words "Occam's Razor" in my intro. How sad... Oh well, perhaps I can create another thread with this same topic, but not immediately discredit the whole thing with 2 words next time.
Thanks for the info!




top topics



 
2

log in

join