Quote:
Originally Posted by romansh  Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiCop I'm not sure that simplicity is relative. Let me illustrate with examples, both of which are valid arithmetic expressions having the same result: - 1 + 2 = 3
- (2 ^ 4) - (3 x 4) -1 = 3
Which of these would you say is simpler? If you can see a difference, then on what basis can you even begin to claim that "simplicity is relative"? | 3=3 ..... now this starts getting esoteric. Axioms and self evident truths?
Which is a simpler explanation for existence:
God did it
God did not do it
Origianally for Occam thought the former was the simpler explanation.
in this sense it is simpler |
Actually neither of these positions is simpler than the other. They are both ontological assertions, i.e. that God exists, or that God does not exist. Symbolically we'd express these as: X = 1, or X <> 1. We have an identity, and a negation.
Ockham did not envision all the ramifications of his parsimony principle since he operated from his point of view as a believer living in a world only of believers. It is not reasonable to assume he could ever have arrived at the conclusion that God did not exist ... whether based on parsimony or by another process. Nevertheless, the principle of parsimony remains useful, including those ramifications Ockham could not envision.