Here’s one. The universe is a particularly perverse simulation, largely controlled by a sequence of pseudorandom number generators. This sequence of PRNGs gets steadily more and more Kolmogorov-complicated (the superbeings that run us love complicated forms of torture), so even if we figured out how a given one worked the next one would already be in play, and it is totally unrelated, so we’d have to start all over. Occam’s razor fails badly in such a universe because the explanation for any particular thing happening gets more complicated over time.
I guess we could test this one by looking at successful explanations over time and seeing whether their complexity increases at a steady rate? Then again, I can already find two or three holes in that test...
Here’s one. The universe is a particularly perverse simulation, largely controlled by a sequence of pseudorandom number generators. This sequence of PRNGs gets steadily more and more Kolmogorov-complicated (the superbeings that run us love complicated forms of torture), so even if we figured out how a given one worked the next one would already be in play, and it is totally unrelated, so we’d have to start all over. Occam’s razor fails badly in such a universe because the explanation for any particular thing happening gets more complicated over time.
In other words, Quirrell-whistling writ large.
I guess we could test this one by looking at successful explanations over time and seeing whether their complexity increases at a steady rate? Then again, I can already find two or three holes in that test...
Hmm. This is a tricky one.