On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:36 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 9/20/2013 2:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:04 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> Also some serious mathematicians are finitists. >>> >>> The Meaning of Pure Mathematics >>> Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 18, >>> No. >>> 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 315-320Published by: SpringerStable URL: >>> http://www.jstor.org/stable/30227216 . >>> >>> >>> Come on! He believes that Platonism violates Occam. That is the same >>> error >>> than believing that Everett violates Occam. Sometimes more is >>> considerably >>> simpler than less, and that's the very inspiration of the "everything" >>> list. >>> >>> >>> Just because I subscribe to the list doesn't oblige me accept its dogma. >>> I >>> think Mycielski remark is irrelevant. Occam is no more than a rough >>> guide >>> anyway. >> >> Hi Brent, >> >> Arguably, Occam might gain the status of theory once we accept >> self-sampling. Of course you're not forced to accept it -- I'm >> agnostic on it myself. But it's not beyond the pale that Occam could >> actually be theory. No? > > > To be a theory there would have to be a clear meaning of what of is not to > be multiplied beyond necessity. > Occam said 'entities', but by that measure > the atomic theory of matter is very much contrary to his principle.
Yes, if you consider two hydrogen atoms to be distinct entities. But physics never does that. Hydrogen atoms are fungible in all of physics. But I agree with your point, it's not clear. > It's > now usually interpreted to mean a simple theory is best, without really > specifying how 'simple' is to be measured. I've been doing this work where I use evolutionary computation to automatically generate theories that explain network growth. Theories are mathematical expressions represented as Lisp-style computer programs. I also automatically apply Occam by preferring the explanations that can be expressed in the shortest possible program. Maybe this sort of approach could be extended? > The are proposals based on > information theory and minimum message length, but even there it's not clear > how to compare the measure of say general relativity and loop quantum > gravity and string theory. Good point. Telmo > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
