Post by fatpaul on Mar 5, 2017 19:07:57 GMT
There are many justifications for OR, from naturalistic to theological, each with their own problems, and I linked to a page on simplicity as way of an example.
Again you're confusing me. SI is a mathematical proof for Occam. Since SI is a method for finding hypothesis to explain empirical data (ie, reality), then the proof would mean that simpler explanations of that reality are more likely; ergo an ontological principle. I gave an example with the conjunction fallacy: the probability of A+B can never be greater than A or B alone. If we're talking about variable VS invariable laws, then with the latter we have A (the invariable laws that apply everywhere), while with the former we'd have A+B (plus perhaps many more). There's no way the invariable hypothesis can be more likely sans evidence.
Occam is also a heuristic technique, yes, but this does not prevent it from also being an ontological principle. In this case, it happens to be both. In fact, science chose it as a heuristic because it seemed to map well to reality. SI was just proof that it did.
It's also worth pointing out the "probability is in the mind" aspect of this. What we're really talking about isn't just reality, but hypotheses to explain reality. When dealing with hypotheses you ARE dealing with the mind because it's essentially the mind that's attempting to map reality. In constructing a hypothesis, every additional element you add has a probability of being wrong, and the more you add, the more the joint probabilities lowers the collective probability of the hypothesis. This is essentially what SI shows in a very rigorous manner, since all binary data adds 1-bit to a hypothesis that's either true/false (50/50). The more you add, the more that you need to be correct. You can think of it like a coin-flip: the sequence HHTTH will always be more likely than HTTHTH merely by virtue of the former being shorter/simpler. This is SI in a nutshell, and it supports the principle of Occam.
Occam is also a heuristic technique, yes, but this does not prevent it from also being an ontological principle. In this case, it happens to be both. In fact, science chose it as a heuristic because it seemed to map well to reality. SI was just proof that it did.
It's also worth pointing out the "probability is in the mind" aspect of this. What we're really talking about isn't just reality, but hypotheses to explain reality. When dealing with hypotheses you ARE dealing with the mind because it's essentially the mind that's attempting to map reality. In constructing a hypothesis, every additional element you add has a probability of being wrong, and the more you add, the more the joint probabilities lowers the collective probability of the hypothesis. This is essentially what SI shows in a very rigorous manner, since all binary data adds 1-bit to a hypothesis that's either true/false (50/50). The more you add, the more that you need to be correct. You can think of it like a coin-flip: the sequence HHTTH will always be more likely than HTTHTH merely by virtue of the former being shorter/simpler. This is SI in a nutshell, and it supports the principle of Occam.
Scientific realism, or reality itself, may be judged in three areas, metaphysics, semantics, and epistemology. Empiricism cannot explain the metaphysical, being of the physical, and questions are always asked of our semantical interpretation, so one has to ask what this means epistemically. My bolded part implies to me that you think otherwise, in that empiricism is reality; empiricism is for efficiency and rationalism is for reason which both may, or may not, explain reality. It may seem pedantic of me, but even using any method or logical principle that itself tends to simplicity to justify this tendency for simplicity, needs to be questioned if the end game is to know the nature of reality.