Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Philosophy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPhilosophy
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
heyitsthatguy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 28 2006 at 23:56
THIS POST IS A LIIIIIE! THIS THREAD IS A LIE!! NONE OF THIS IS REAL! YOU ALL ARE IMAGINING THIS SENTENCE AS YOU READ ON THROUGH IT! WHO'S TO SAY IT DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE YOU LOOKED AT IT?


Back to Top
JrKASperov View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 11:57
Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:



Obviously, using Occam's Razor, the Earth is spherical and the Van Allen belt does exist.


Actually, no, Ockham's razor has nothing to do with this. Ockham's razor only applies to HOW philosophical or scientific questions should be handled. Not if a theory describes reality or not. Similarly, it has nothing to say about if Earth is spherical or not or if the Allen belt exists. Ockham's razor is about how we come to those conclusions. This is the difference betwee ontology and methodology, and Ockham was radically empirical in this; meaning he thinks science has nothing to do with finding truth or not. (indeed, considering he was a cleric! Wink)
Epic.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 14:49
Originally posted by JrKASperov JrKASperov wrote:



Actually, no, Ockham's razor has nothing to do with this. Ockham's razor only applies to HOW philosophical or scientific questions should be handled. Not if a theory describes reality or not. Similarly, it has nothing to say about if Earth is spherical or not or if the Allen belt exists. Ockham's razor is about how we come to those conclusions. This is the difference betwee ontology and methodology, and Ockham was radically empirical in this; meaning he thinks science has nothing to do with finding truth or not. (indeed, considering he was a cleric! Wink)
 
By the contrary, Occam's Razor applies perfectly to believe or not if the earth is spherical (for example), as a fact Occam's Razor Principle is the cornerstone of scientific research.
 
Occam said:  "One should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed." In other words, between two possible explanations for a phenomenom you must choose the simplest one.
 
And don't use the excuse that he was a priest, because this pronciple is simple and brilliant specially comming from a priest, being that priests believe in miracles and the Occam Razor proiinciple is purely logic that defies the possibilities of unexplained phenomenons as miracles.
 
So lets' go back to the earth:
 
Hypothesis One: The shadow of the earth in the moon is round and the sattelittes have shown the earth as sphericall.
 
Hypothesis Two: The shadow of the earth mis round but it may have nbeen altered by a strange phenomenom that we don't know or understand and the Sattelites being sent to earth  orbit don't really exist abnd all what we see are products of our imaguination, so the earth may wekll be square
 
Occan Razor's proincip´le say that we must believe in option one because it's the simplest and we're not adding unknown, unexplained and unnecessary assumptions.
 
Seems too simplistic and evident but that's the point almost always the simple and logiical explanation is the correct.
 
If you're in Central Park anyou listen casks of an animal, don't expéct to find a zebra. most surely will be a  horse because Cops normally use horses in the park, but in order to be a zebra you would have to assume that the anilmal escaped fom it's cage, then from the zoo, has not been captured and managed to reach the park through the traffic without you having heard the news on radio or seen on TV, too many asumptions make the case most unlikely.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 02 2006 at 15:02
            
Back to Top
JrKASperov View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 15:16
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

In other words, between two possible explanations for a phenomenom you must choose the simplest one.
 


No he did not mean it like that. Ockham was a nominalist and as such he didn't believe that science could come to truth or speaking about reality in any form. It would be silly to search for explanations of phenomena if you really believed that. Ockham's razor is only appliable as a methodogical instrument aka, if you want to research something, you should do it in the simplest way possible. If looking for a description, not an explanation, then choose the simplest one.

This is a significant difference, the biggest debating point in science philosophy even, being the realist point of view versus the instrumentalist point of view! Ockham was one of the most radical instrumentalists ever, so don't think you can coin his ideas for the opposide side. Tongue
Epic.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 15:59
Originally posted by JrKASperov JrKASperov wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

In other words, between two possible explanations for a phenomenom you must choose the simplest one.
 


No he did not mean it like that. Ockham was a nominalist and as such he didn't believe that science could come to truth or speaking about reality in any form. It would be silly to search for explanations of phenomena if you really believed that. Ockham's razor is only appliable as a methodogical instrument aka, if you want to research something, you should do it in the simplest way possible. If looking for a description, not an explanation, then choose the simplest one.
 
Well, seems the scientific community believe it's the fundament of their investigation
 
Quote

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor as in Leibniz' "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

 
 
or
 
Quote

Occam's Razor is a useful rule for science. William of Occam (Ockham, or several other spellings) suggested that the simplest account which 'explains' the phenomenon is to be preferred. Occam's razor is often phrased as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

This is generally used when choosing between two theories which fit the data equally well. Consider the ubiquitous situation of two theories A and B, where A is the most basic version of the theory that fits the data, and B is a version of A augmented with additional elements which neither improve nor harm the fit. The principle of Occam's Razor advises us to "shave" away the additional elements of B leaving us with the more basic version A.

 
In this case and if you want, we can change the order and the  Occam Razor's Principle will be valid:
 
Premise A:
 
The satellites see the earth spheicall and the shadow of the earth in the moon is spehericall BECAUSE THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL.
 
Premise B
 
The photos of the earth sent by the satellites show the earth is sphericall and the shadow of the earth inthe moon is sphericall because some unexplained phenomenoms that we are not able to notice and have no logical explanation makes as see it like that.
 
In this case we shave the additional elements of premise B and we reach the same conclusion that the earth must be spherical usig thesimplest premise A.
 


This is a significant difference, the biggest debating point in science philosophy even, being the realist point of view versus the instrumentalist point of view! Ockham was one of the most radical instrumentalists ever, so don't think you can coin his ideas for the opposide side. Tongue
 
It took centutries before Einstein changed it to:
 
Quote As Albert Einstein puts it, "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
 
It's just a matter of semantics, at the end between two exoplanations we must choose the simplest according to Occam.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 02 2006 at 17:27
            
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 16:31
Even after applying Occam's razor, you still have to be prepared to modify your hypothesis as new evidence comes in.
 
In the example above, OK, an animal encountered in Central Park is initially more likely to be a horse than a zebra (ie, fewer assumptions needed for the "horse" hypothesis). But if you notice it has black & white stripes, then it's either a zebra, or a horse, which has for some weird reason been painted........Occam's razor now suggests the "zebra" hypothesis might be better........
 
My point is that Occam's razor isn't one of those plastic disposables, use once and discard; it's an old fashioned cutthroat, and can (and should) be used again & again.....as long as you know how to use it properly (and in my experience, most people, scientists or not, don't)...Wink
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
Back to Top
AtLossForWords View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 16:40
I really don't like Occam's razor.  It's an all but full proof way to explain natrual phoenomenons.  I think Occam's razor is a sufficient explanation for a concept with a lack of research.  It would be better if Occam's razor is used to push research in the right direction than to support it.

"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 02 2006 at 22:37
Originally posted by crimson thing crimson thing wrote:

Even after applying Occam's razor, you still have to be prepared to modify your hypothesis as new evidence comes in.
 
Of course is limited when the amouunt of knowledge is limited, I'm not defending Occam's Razor Principle, but it is ratilanl and works in most oof the cases.
 
For example, this principle was used to prove the existence of God, this people of the XV and AVI Century didn't knew about the evolution or Carbone 14 to prove the age of the ruins, so it was more rational to believe in a Supreme Intelligence (Well stuil I do) than in the Universe created just for random causes.
 
Today most scietifics use the same principle to fdeny the existence of God proving the liits of it.
 
 
In the example above, OK, an animal encountered in Central Park is initially more likely to be a horse than a zebra (ie, fewer assumptions needed for the "horse" hypothesis). But if you notice it has black & white stripes, then it's either a zebra, or a horse, which has for some weird reason been painted........Occam's razor now suggests the "zebra" hypothesis might be better........
 
Please, you're mixing things:
 
In the first example the person only listens the sounds of a horse or zebra cask, he doesn't know anything about it except for that sound, so the logical conclusion is that it would be a horse because it's normal for policemen to be on horses in the park and not a zebra because too many things must have happened, as a fact I doubt that ever in the history of New York a zebra must have runed through Central Park, so in this case using the Razor Occam's Principal you shave everything not normal or logic and you will be right.
 
In your example there's no need to analyze the circumstances, you're looking at the animal, somehow the zebra is already in the park, the circumstamces that took the animal there are irrelevant, so there's no need to use any deduction method and BTW if you srr the animal you'll know, becaue the soize of the zebra uis different to a painted horse.
 
 
My point is that Occam's razor isn't one of those plastic disposables, use once and discard; it's an old fashioned cutthroat, and can (and should) be used again & again.....as long as you know how to use it properly (and in my experience, most people, scientists or not, don't)...Wink
 
It'¿s only a help to avoid ilogical situations, nothing else, but it's not 100% accurate.
 
I laugh whith those groups that see Macchu Picchu or the Pyramyds and don't understand how the primitive inhabitans of Perú or Egypt managed to create such wonders, so they talk about aliens.
 
Using the Occam Razor's Principle is easy to think in logical terms, making a rational election between two options:
 
A) The native Peruvians and Egypt inhabitants had free working hand (slaves), most surely had developed primitive but efficient methods to carry big stones miles, so they built both wonders.
 
B) Space aliens came from billions of light years to build cities without any purpose and haven't been seen since then, there's no physical evidence of them but we must accept this posibility.
 
Using the Occam's Razor Principle we know that this two cultures had slaves (unlimited working hand), they had developed simple methods as logs one after the otherto move huge stones, they have left proves of their architectural abilitties, so we must go with option A despite what the Alpha & Omega lunatics who clain to have made spiritual travels to Ganymides say.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
JrKASperov View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 00:43
Yeah yeah, you're all right about that Ivan, but you miss the most important point:

Ockham's razor does NOT in ANY way give you the theory that is 'true' or 'the real explanation', it ONLY gives you the theory that you should use because methodogically it's the best. End of story.

Edit: you however are abusing it to say which theory is the truth and that is inexcusable and not how Ockham intended it. I'll say it again, Ockham was a radical instrumentalist, and as such it's impossible for him to put forward a theory that shows 'what is the true explanation'.

ADD: Also, I think this is the main reason why realists stink: They all base their finding of truth on one thing and one thing only: what theory is mathematically more eloquent, simple, beautiful or easy to use. And that, quite frankly, is a bollocks way of finding truth. Dead Ockham would never agree with that!


Edited by JrKASperov - July 03 2006 at 00:48
Epic.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 01:09
Originally posted by JrKASperov JrKASperov wrote:

Yeah yeah, you're all right about that Ivan, but you miss the most important point:

Ockham's razor does NOT in ANY way give you the theory that is 'true' or 'the real explanation', it ONLY gives you the theory that you should use because methodogically it's the best. End of story.
 
I agree, I never tried to defend the infalibility of Occam's Razor Principle, just that according to that principle we should believe the simplest premise tends to be the correct.

Edit: you however are abusing it to say which theory is the truth and that is inexcusable and not how Ockham intended it. I'll say it again, Ockham was a radical instrumentalist, and as such it's impossible for him to put forward a theory that shows 'what is the true explanation'.
A theory is like a child, once it's born has own life, as I said before Occam's Razor Principle has been used both to justify the existence and the non existence of God.
 
Occam's personal beliefs are not important, the main thing is that his theory took own life and has been used as the base of Scientific research.

ADD: Also, I think this is the main reason why realists stink: They all base their finding of truth on one thing and one thing only: what theory is mathematically more eloquent, simple, beautiful or easy to use. And that, quite frankly, is a bollocks way of finding truth. Dead Ockham would never agree with that!
 
I'm more eclectic on that bases, mathematics or realism may be undeniable in some cases, but mathematical formulas can take us to believe that Schroendingen's cat is alive and death simultaneusly at one moment.
 
The formula says that, but defies reality.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 12:13

FYI, From Wikipedia:

"Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 14:15
Oh, that Occam's razor.........Wink
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2006 at 20:43
    I just found this thread, and it looks like it's gone through several twists and turns. I am interested in the initial question. If a tree falls in the woods...
It is a classic Zen koan, and wasn't really meant to be solved scientifically. It is supposed to reveal a spiritual truth.

Here is my answer. Neither the trees, nor the woods, make such observations.
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com
Back to Top
JrKASperov View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2006 at 04:12
It in fact cannot be solved scientifically because it is not based on observations. Wink
Epic.
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2006 at 07:20
Originally posted by Maani Maani wrote:

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

    


I still don't understand, Maani... my head hurts even more, now!


Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2006 at 09:20
I would forget about the damned razor, actually - it's not really relevant, it's certainly not infallible, most people don't know how to use it, and it's pretty useless to guys like us with beards anyway....Wink
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2007 at 13:56
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
 
You must ask yourself, "how do I define a sound?" If a sound is the ear's perception and the brain's interpretation, then the tree falling doesn't make a sound. If sound is not subjective to human perception, then it could make a sound.
 
More philosophy please! Big%20smile
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 01:44
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
 
You must ask yourself, "how do I define a sound?" If a sound is the ear's perception and the brain's interpretation, then the tree falling doesn't make a sound. If sound is not subjective to human perception, then it could make a sound.
 
More philosophy please! Big%20smile
 
But sadly the perception of the ear is irrelevant to the sound.
 
Sound is defined as vbrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, the three is a solid entity, the earth also, then the collison of both will produce vivrations, ergo sound, despite there's anybody to listen it.
 
I always believed this is not a paradox or anything similar, it's an expression of poetry more than philosophy or any science.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65914 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 02:05
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 Sound is defined as vbrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, the three is a solid entity, the earth also, then the collison of both will produce vivrations, ergo sound, despite there's anybody to listen it.
 
I always believed this is not a paradox or anything similar, it's an expression of poetry more than philosophy or any science.
 
Iván


yes, more of a creative exercise than solid theoretic philosophy
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2007 at 00:29
Just took my philosophy final a few days ago. I now know everything in the world...or nothing in the world.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.