Notice that I said “should move their credence”, not “would”. It is not a prediction about the reaction of (rational or irrational) real-life theists, but an assessment of the objective merits of the argument.
grin That’s more like the reaction I was looking for!
I would be curious to see what is the maths you are referring to. I (think I) understand the math content of the Occam argument, and accept it as valid. Let me give an analogy for why I think the argument is useless anyway: suppose I tried the following argument against Christianity:
-If Christianity is true, God exists.
-God doesn’t exist.
-Hence, Christianity is false.
The argument is valid as a matter of formal logic, and we would agree it has true premises and conclusion. However, it should (not only would, should) not persuade any Christian, because their priors for the second premise are very low, and the argument gives them no reason to update them. I contend the Occam argument is mathematically valid but question-begging and futile in a similar way. (I can explain more why I think this, if anybody is interested, but just wanted to make my position clear here).
Humans are made by evolution to be approximately Occamian, this implies that Occamian reasoning is a least a local maxima of reasoning ability in our universe.
When we use our Occamian brains to consider the question of why the universe appears simple, we come up with the simple hypothesis that the universe is itself simple.
Describing the universe with maths works better than heroic epics or supernatural myths, as a matter of practical applicability and prediction power.
The mathematically best method of measuring simplicity is provably the one used in Solomonoff Induction/Kolmogorov complexity.
Quantum Mechanics and -Cosmology is one of the simplest explanations ever for the universe as we observe it.
The argument is sound, but the people are crazy. That doesn’t make the argument unsound.
Notice that I said “should move their credence”, not “would”. It is not a prediction about the reaction of (rational or irrational) real-life theists, but an assessment of the objective merits of the argument.
Aaaaah. Upvoted for being wrong as a simple matter of maths.
grin That’s more like the reaction I was looking for!
I would be curious to see what is the maths you are referring to. I (think I) understand the math content of the Occam argument, and accept it as valid. Let me give an analogy for why I think the argument is useless anyway: suppose I tried the following argument against Christianity:
The argument is valid as a matter of formal logic, and we would agree it has true premises and conclusion. However, it should (not only would, should) not persuade any Christian, because their priors for the second premise are very low, and the argument gives them no reason to update them. I contend the Occam argument is mathematically valid but question-begging and futile in a similar way. (I can explain more why I think this, if anybody is interested, but just wanted to make my position clear here).
The Occam argument is basically:
Humans are made by evolution to be approximately Occamian, this implies that Occamian reasoning is a least a local maxima of reasoning ability in our universe.
When we use our Occamian brains to consider the question of why the universe appears simple, we come up with the simple hypothesis that the universe is itself simple.
Describing the universe with maths works better than heroic epics or supernatural myths, as a matter of practical applicability and prediction power.
The mathematically best method of measuring simplicity is provably the one used in Solomonoff Induction/Kolmogorov complexity.
Quantum Mechanics and -Cosmology is one of the simplest explanations ever for the universe as we observe it.
The argument is sound, but the people are crazy. That doesn’t make the argument unsound.