Occam's razor and the simplest explanation of reality

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

I think you misunderstand Occam’s razor. It basically says that if there are multiple explanations for something, the one that is simpler is usually the best one, or at least the one to start with.

Ok, so when you say it's the best one, you only mean best with respect to parsimony itself, not any other metric, right? I mean best with respect to the five aforemention epistemic values.

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, so when you say it's the best one, you only mean best with respect to parsimony itself, not any other metric, right? I mean best with respect to the five aforemention epistemic values.

Yes .the other epistemic metrics are important but I'm solely focusing here on Occam’s razor . Not sure why you think It has less potent explanatory power?  It simply says if the same phenomenon could be explained by less  assumptions then there is no need to explain it with an explanation that requires more assumptions. 

[Razard86]

4 hours ago, Ezo said:

No, you are not ignorant and you are not deluded. I do try to spare my intelligence. I am sorry if I offended you 

You can't offend anyone, he created the offense. 

[Carl-Richard]

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yes .the other epistemic metrics are important but I'm solely focusing here on Occam’s razor . Not sure why you think It has less potent explanatory power?  It simply says if the same phenomenon could be explained by less  assumptions then there is no need to explain it with an explanation that requires more assumptions. 

Oh, well in that case, if the explanations always have the same explanatory power, then that is a highly idealized interpretation of the razor. In reality, two explanations are virtually never equal in all ways but the amount of assumptions they deploy. That's why I pointed out the trade-off between parsimony and explanatory power when it comes to traditional idealism vs. physicalism.

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Oh, well in that case, if the explanations always have the same explanatory power, then that is a highly idealized interpretation of the razor. In reality, two explanations are virtually never equal in all ways but the amount of assumptions they deploy. That's why I pointed out the trade-off between parsimony and explanatory power when it comes to traditional idealism vs. physicalism.

 Two explanations for the same phenomenon could be more complex or simple than each other.  For example if you have a stomach ache..one explanation is that you ate something unhealthy or unclean ..another explanation is that there is an invisible  demon lives in your gut that's causing you the stomach ache.  Using the razor we go with the first explanation because it carries less unjustified  assumptions.

We should eliminate unnecessary elements that would decrease an explanation's efficiency. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

 Two explanations for the same phenomenon could be more complex or simple than each other.  For example if you have a stomach ache..one explanation is that you ate something unhealthy or unclean ..another explanation is that there is an invisible  demon lives in your gut that's causing you the stomach ache.  Using the razor we go with the first explanation because it carries less unjustified  assumptions.

We should eliminate unnecessary elements that would decrease an explanation's efficiency. 

Yes, the utility becomes obvious when you're presented with two very different examples within a simple context like establishing a single causal link. However, the interesting things happen when you have two very similar explanations within a complex context like establishing a metaphysics, and that is what I tried to show with the physicalism vs. traditional idealism example.

[Someone here]

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes, the utility becomes obvious when you're presented with two very different examples within a simple context like establishing a single causal link. However, the interesting things happen when you have two very similar explanations within a complex context like establishing a metaphysics, and that is what I tried to show with the physicalism vs. traditional idealism example.

Actually, both idealism and physicalism fail the razor. Why would you assume that reality is "physical " or "mental " instead of it being undefined and indefinable?

 You don't actually know what reality is .so the simplest explanation is that reality is exactly what's taking place in your consciousness right fucking now and that's it .Full stop. We don't need any philosophical school to explain it away .

But let's debate physicalism and idealism..the simpler theory is the one with less numerous or less complex premises than its competitor, and should therefore be selected based on its Syntactic simplicity. 
two theories (A and B)... and suppose that theory B has one extra premise. Because theory B adds a premise without adding explanatory power, we should prefer theory A for the sake of 
Elegance. While this example easily illustrates how one theory is more elegant than another,and that of reality being only what you're directly conscious of right now .so if we have to choose between physicalism and idealism..then idealism is our best guess using the razor .but if we truly wanna cut the shit and use the razor effectively..then no epistemic system is required at all as I mentioned in OP. Reality is just what is .prior to all philosophical schools .

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Actually, both idealism and physicalism fail the razor. Why would you assume that reality is "physical " or "mental " instead of it being undefined and indefinable?

Ok, so we're back to the most parsimonious explanation being equal to no explanation. But again, is that really the best explanation though? I suggest not.

[Someone here]

@Carl-Richard

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, so we're back to the most parsimonious explanation being equal to no explanation. But again, is that really the best explanation though? I suggest not.

Yes exactly. notice that any philosophical scheme that you are trying to box reality in doesn't hold water . Whether it be materialism,idealism, solipsism etc.  We don't need to explain the first order phenomenon (the raw experience of consciousness) with something less fundamental (philosophical schools )which are just thoughts and conceptual noise .

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

.two theories (A and B)... and suppose that theory B has one extra premise. Because theory B adds a premise without adding explanatory power, we should prefer theory A for the sake of 
Elegance. While this example easily illustrates how one theory is more elegant than another,and that of reality being only what you're directly conscious of right now .so if we have to choose between physicalism and idealism..then idealism is our best guess using the razor.

What if physicalism has more explanatory power than traditional idealism? You can argue that it does.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Someone here said:

Yes exactly. notice that any philosophical scheme that you are trying to box reality in doesn't hold water . Whether it be materialism,idealism, solipsism etc.  We don't need to explain the first order phenomenon (the raw experience of consciousness) with something less fundamental (philosophical schools )which are just thoughts and conceptual noise.

Yes, but if we were to concede that we want to box something in for the sake of utility (which if you're a pragmatist, is what metaphysics is about in the first place), then you need some other criteria than just parsimony, because the most parsimonious option is actually the least useful option (it refuses to box anything in).

[Karas]

interesting

[The0Self]

Occam's Razor is of course a great tool or pointer for these matters, as Truth is that which cannot be simpler.

[SOUL]

On 8/1/2022 at 2:53 AM, axiom said:

The simplest explanation is to stop thinking entirely and just be. Hammer to the head!

(jk!)

No joke, just be is the simplest explanation because it's not even an explanation, it's the absence of an explanation.

[RMQualtrough]

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What if physicalism has more explanatory power than traditional idealism? You can argue that it does.

It can never explain itself which is a giant issue. Mental objects in isolation aren't usually ascribed any kind of substance, they're not made of anything- they're made of nothing.

'Nothing' explains itself. It's the only thing that ever could, I think.

If mental objects floating in a void (so just like, in isolation) aren't made of matter then you have a substance duality. You'd have to go backwards to neutral monism or whatever, as something has to encase both the physical and mental, since both share one space which is the space of reality itself.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@RMQualtrough The "neutral monism" is obviously achieved by Nothingness, since Nothingness is the only thing formless enough to be compatible with all forms (either mental or physical) and unite them all.

[Carl-Richard]

On 3.8.2022 at 2:11 PM, RMQualtrough said:

It can never explain itself which is a giant issue.

You always need to start with something that cannot be explained, that cannot be reduced to something else. That applies to all metaphysics (unless you want a metaphysics that cannot explain anything).

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You always need to start with something that cannot be explained, that cannot be reduced to something else. That applies to all metaphysics (unless you want a metaphysics that cannot explain anything).

Nothingness can't be reduced to anything else, and it doesn't require any explanation for its own being since nothingness needs no creation.

Quite simplistic really. I thought that was a very common recognization in strong ego death, the fact of our fundamental nothingness? I hope so, because outwardly it sounds like philosophy BS or theory, when it isn't...

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

Nothingness can't be reduced to anything else, and it doesn't require any explanation for its own being since nothingness needs no creation.

Quite simplistic really. I thought that was a very common recognization in strong ego death, the fact of our fundamental nothingness? I hope so, because outwardly it sounds like philosophy BS or theory, when it isn't...

Ok, so you posit nothingness as your reduction base. When you do that, then by default, you no longer require an explanation for nothingness, but also in a similar vein, nothingness cannot explain anything by itself, or it's at least not a very useful explanation (e.g. "why can I not read your thoughts?" – "nothingness"). If you want your metaphysics to be able to make useful explanations for different stuff (maybe you don't), then where do you go from here?