As in the phrasing of Occam’s Razor or the principle of maximum parsimony.
I’m not sure if you were around during the 2000s (if that’s your DOB then probably not) atheism/evolution vs theism/creation era but a common “debate” would go like
Atheist: finding a correct scientific answer can be accelerated by simplifying the assumptions.
Theist: well, the simplest answer is the “God created it!” It’s definitely simpler than the theory of evolution and a 5 billion year old earth. lol pwnz0red !!!!
Atheist: … uhh that’s not what I mean… stimmer stammer.
I think we agree on the problem, in terms of “simple” is the incorrect framing.
But I also don’t think we get around that by saying “not the simplest symbols but the simplest substance.”
If you think about it more like “does this need to be in an explanation and/or does it implicitly contain more dependencies or assumptions?”
As is the case with witches and God in our two examples, there’s an implicit assumption that witches have power and disposition to to kill, and God has power to create a universe.
You really don’t have to care if those conditions about witches and God are true, all you have to care about is “is there a reason to include witches or God in this explanation?” If there’s no evidence, then there’s no reason to include them.
Hm, I think I see what you mean. I agree that “not the simplest symbols but the simplest substance” has the issue of “simple” being a term that can be argued and that what you’re saying about dependencies/assumptions gets closer to the heart of the issue. I guess it depends on who your audience is.
As in the phrasing of Occam’s Razor or the principle of maximum parsimony.
I’m not sure if you were around during the 2000s (if that’s your DOB then probably not) atheism/evolution vs theism/creation era but a common “debate” would go like
Atheist: finding a correct scientific answer can be accelerated by simplifying the assumptions.
Theist: well, the simplest answer is the “God created it!” It’s definitely simpler than the theory of evolution and a 5 billion year old earth. lol pwnz0red !!!!
Atheist: … uhh that’s not what I mean… stimmer stammer.
I think we agree on the problem, in terms of “simple” is the incorrect framing.
But I also don’t think we get around that by saying “not the simplest symbols but the simplest substance.”
If you think about it more like “does this need to be in an explanation and/or does it implicitly contain more dependencies or assumptions?”
As is the case with witches and God in our two examples, there’s an implicit assumption that witches have power and disposition to to kill, and God has power to create a universe.
You really don’t have to care if those conditions about witches and God are true, all you have to care about is “is there a reason to include witches or God in this explanation?” If there’s no evidence, then there’s no reason to include them.
Hm, I think I see what you mean. I agree that “not the simplest symbols but the simplest substance” has the issue of “simple” being a term that can be argued and that what you’re saying about dependencies/assumptions gets closer to the heart of the issue. I guess it depends on who your audience is.