In all seriousness, I’m not sure how an anti-Occamian reasoner would even conclude that its crazy hypotheses were wrong. Because “I saw the sun yesterday because it rose” is surely less complex than “the sun failed to rise yesterday but coincidentally I developed a visual processing disorder/superpower that caused me to see a sun that wasn’t there and also gain the ability to see in the dark as if it was broad daylight.”
There is a multitude of hypotheses that have been wrong until now. Is there a different anti-Occamian prior that favors each one?
In all seriousness, I’m not sure how an anti-Occamian reasoner would even conclude that its crazy hypotheses were wrong. Because “I saw the sun yesterday because it rose” is surely less complex than “the sun failed to rise yesterday but coincidentally I developed a visual processing disorder/superpower that caused me to see a sun that wasn’t there and also gain the ability to see in the dark as if it was broad daylight.”
I guess I’m thinking more of anti-inductive reasoning rather than an anti-Occamian prior.