View Single Post
Old 1st January 2018, 05:56 PM   #188
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Oh, I can invoke Ocham's Razor to support and explain my position too
No you can't. Suppose we let go off an object (L) and observe it to fall down (F) then some data we could have would be: LFLFLFLF. We get a law of gravity: L -> LF and can compress the data to:
"L -> LF, LLLL"

So far for the science. Now any ontology you're going to assert here is going to make this compressed data larger, such as:
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a really real thing" (ie materialism)

but also
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a simulated thing" (ie matrixism)
or
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a product of my mind" (ie solipsism)
and so on

Quote:
Anything else is, e.g., solipsism, matrixism, universal minds etc, are AFAIC, meaningless philosobabble. As SG Collins would put it, "it demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know"
All of which applies just as well to materialism.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top