midwit tier
Since you didn't even state the principle correctly, I see only one midwit here.
>>16539049Agreed. The idea of "simpler" is too subjective.
>>16539080Kolmogorov complexity
>>16539049It just works.
>>16539084Are you implying that Kolmogorov complexity is a good definition for the purposes of Occam's razor?
>>16539080Not really, the universe always seeks the most optimal path to achieve something, this is empirically observable in every system
>>16539090Oh really?
>>16539075fpbp
>>16539049>>16539080You're both big dumb dumbs. The idea is, if you have competing hypotheses with equal explanatory power, pick the one that requires the least assumptions. For example, Lorentz aether theory has (IIRC) the same predictive power as special relativity, but Lorentz aether theory requires the existence of a field that you can't ever measure. Why pick the theory that requires an immeasurable quantity when I have an equally good theory without it?
>>16539094Shut the fuck up you stupid larping schizo
>>16539094>>16539094General relativity literally believes everywhere is the same based off of a fuzzy crackpots armchair hustle.
>>16539096>>16539097>t. Big dumb dumbs.
>>16539097And yet it's being experimentally proven in ways Einstein couldn't even imagine. The predictive power of general relativity and its elegance are uncanny. Just compare it to how ad hoc the entire Standard Model is.
I do not live on a spinning space testicle
>>16539209that's just a load of confirmation bias and lies scientists are all rent seekers real science is done by aristocrats for the love of the game like myself
>>16539244this is slightly true, they say social media ages you
>>16539080simpler just means the one that has the fewest untested assumptions
You want to reduce noise and hone in on the most significantly weighted variables as your general heuristic, since it's impossible to consider and process them all accurately. This is basically just intuition.
>>16539084You can't even define Kolmogorov complexity
>>16539049Occam's razor is a heuristic for tackling the natural worldit doesn't work on intelligent adversaries that understand Occam's razori.e. one may commit a crime in a convoluted way, and argue the simpler explanation is that they're innocent
>>16539394Oh yeah, that's totally objective in real world situations
Occam's Razor is just a corollary of first principles. Starting from a simpler position is always better. It doesn't matter if it's right. All that matters is optimizing the path to what is.
>>16539049Only if you gloss over what "equally good" really means.
>>16539090If everywhere is equally optimized, why the inconsistent density and energy distribution instead of some universal unity that is equalized everywhere all the time?
>>16539094>but Lorentz aether theory requires the existence of a field that you can't ever measure.Any time there is a possibility of 0 in a field, you have something that can't be measured and even if you assert there is 0 possibility of ever being a 0, you still explicitly run into the exact same problem, so you are stuck with some immeasurable additive element either way because 0 is a fundamental stabilizer to any type of measurement given the only reason x=x in the first place is because x=0+x.
>>16540093>If everywhere is equally optimized, why the inconsistent density and energy distributionPlease note that these low entropy systems are always trying to move to higher entropy
>>16540181That is the exact opposite of what you said before, now you are saying the universe goes from more ordered to less ordered over time instead of always being the most optimized order.
>>16539084>kolmogorovIsn't this that guy from atmospheric turbulence that eternally fucked over the field by making some half-wit dimensional analysis argument the "standard"?
>>16540186Entropy has nothing to do with "order" or "disorder", two completely vague and subjective terms, entropy is the degree of thermodynamic equilibrium in any given system.
>>16540198Equilibrium and Order mean the same basic thing, you are still saying that the universe goes from more equilibrium to less over time instead of always being optimized.
>>16539049Anon, you are too retarded and ignorant to be able to pick the simpler hypothesis.
>>16540212>you are still saying that the universe goes from more equilibrium to lessLow entropy = less thermodynamic equilibrium, dummy, things want to move towards higher entropy, so more thermodynamic equilibrium>Equilibrium and Order mean the same basic thingNo they don't, you can have a chaotic, disordered system which is in thermodynamic equilibrium, so despite being "disordered" it is still high entropy, because entropy is a relative measurement dependent on the system you're measuring
>>16540218No, the universe would be contracting to a point of unity instead of expanding to an indeterminable infinity if it were tending towards greater equilibrium over time.>No they don't, you can have a chaotic, disordered systemI accept your concession, the entire universe isn't constantly seeking some most optimal path, it is full of chaotic disorder.
>>16540224>the entire universe isn't constantly seeking some most optimal path, it is full of chaotic disorder.Wrong, just look at all the rocks around you, perfectly ordered in neat crystalline structures, yet has the same degree of entropy as the sun, because it is in thermodynamic equilibrium within the measured system
>>16539049>>16539075>>16539080>>16539084>>16539085>>16539087"The simpler solution is often the correct one"That isn't Occam's Razor you fucking retards that's Einstein ripping off Occam and fucking up the translation."Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate""Don't compound more than necessary"or only compound as much as necessary, not more.It is much more reasonable to translate it to "mistakes compound" than to select the simplest solution.
>>16540611Thanks for the insight.I have yet another reason to hate einstein, cool.
>>16540611Well, shit. That's a much better principle that actually makes sense. Fucking translations.
anyone who believes the universe is homogeneous and isotropic is an idiot beyond comprehension
>>16540708anyone who doesn't believe it is a retard. what you can argue over is the distance where the assumption applies.
>>16540255>just look at all the rocks around you, perfectly ordered in neat crystalline structures,No, there are no perfectly organized rocks perfectly arranged around me and most rocks are not diamonds, they are not uniform crystals, they are made of a bunch of different compounds all chaotically marbled together, you clearly haven't taken a basic geology class.
