On Sep 15, 7:52Â am, Errol
gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 15, 12:46Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Sep 15, 3:15Â am, "curmudgeon"
bresnan.net> wrote:>
>>> "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> "curmudgeon"
bresnan.net> wrote in message>
>>> Â news:hf-dnSrlre_JnVPVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@
bresnan.com...
>>> Ockham's Razor, simply put, is the belief that when all things are
>>> Â considered, the simplest explanation is often the truest one.
>
>>> William Ockham  1214 - 1294
>
>>> Agree.
>>> The more the words, the less the meaning.
>
>>> I wonder just what the Emanuel Kant fan club would
>>> either think or say about it ?
>
>> First they would explain that your interpretation is inadequate.
>
>> As applied to scientific reasoning, which is all that matters. it
>> should be stated as follows:
>
>> "The theory which requires the the least assumption should be adopted
>> as the working theory." Â And please note that "least assumption" is
>> not "fewest assumptions" but a more general application of the term.
>
>> So an explanation like Goddidit is not supported by OR over some other
>> like Evolution, since Evolution does not require  the assumption of
>> the existence of a supernatural entity.
>
>> --tg- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I would agree with you that evolution is a more logical explanation
> for the development of living creatures, but evolution would/could not
> work unless all the other factors were just perfect. I.E. gravity
> force being strong enough to accumulate matter into planets but not
> too strong to overwhelm the nuclear forces.
That's really not correct. Evolution has nothing to do with why Earth
exists, or the nature of the constants of physics. Evolution could
work just fine in any universe where there is life, where life
involves imperfect reproduction in a variable environment or imperfect
reproduction where the reproduction rate is dependent on the nature of
the progeny.
>The balance of the forces
> conducive to creating the universe, earth and the life on it, until
> such time as there are clearer explanations, i will attribute to, for
> lack of a better explanation and word, god. Occams razor makes perfect
> sense in that case.
No, OR simply doesn't apply in that case because there are no
competing theories with different degrees of assumption. The universe
may be created by and old guy with a beard, or it may be a causeless
event in a meta-universe, or we can't even formulate a meaningful
question about it, but there's no theory there because we can't test
any of it. It is *all* assumption.
-tg
>
> I do not claim to understand how all the facets contributing to the
> experience i call life and how it all came to be, and some may
> laughingly call this the diminishing god of the gaps. So be it then.
> Eventually most of the gaps may be closed and a perfectly
> understandable explanation could be commonly grasped by all. Occams
> razor makes a watchmaker a more reasonable explanation than the watch
> constructing itself, until we fully understand the process
