Occam's razor

A common question that I have not seen a creationist answer yet, and would be quite interested:Many creationists argue against evolution stating that it seems so unlikely that chemicals could form self-replicating cycles, or that major interspecies transitions can occur, etc. But I have to ask:What are the odds of God "just occurring".If the answer is "God was always there.", the question then becomes: "Why was God always there?" What is more likely - a universe with a small set of basic physical laws, or a universe created by an infinitely more complex sentient being that just happens to exist?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I totally agree. I believe occam's razor can be applied to a situation like this (assumption science makes vs. assumptions creationists make).But can't it be said heeding the advice of occam's razor is another assumption? can't you argue since ultimately certain assumptions must be take on faith, and no one really knows the actual complexity of reality? one set of assumptions should be just as good as the next, occam's razor is just another assumption.... err... maybe no one actually makes this argument. umm... i have a response if someone did. so i'll try that first. who agree's with this premis: the assumptions creationists make are just as valid as the assumptions scientists make beacuse the complexity of reality can't be known. including the assumption "the simplest set of assumptions should be considered first" is just circular reasoning, or ad hoc.

More generally, the comment is that given two scenarios that equally explain the given phenomenon, the one that is less complex is preferred since there are fewer elements required. That is, you prefer the simpler mechanism over the Rube Goldberg one.Is it proof? Of course not. As you say, things can be quite complex. But, Occam's Razor takes that into account. As we learn more and more about the complexity of the universe, the "simplest" explanation must be capable of explaining the complexity we see.And we have the problem of those who make the claim of "too complex" and thus god is required to make it. If this universe is "too complex," then surely god is even more complex and if the universe is "too complex," then the even greater complexity of god is "too complex" and thus requires an uber-god to explain its existence.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

And we have the problem of those who make the claim of "too complex" and thus god is required to make it. If this universe is "too complex," then surely god is even more complex and if the universe is "too complex," then the even greater complexity of god is "too complex" and thus requires an uber-god to explain its existence.

---

i don't know about this. a given state of complexity does not necessarily require an even more complex entity to create it. snowflakes are the easiest example... however evolutionists suggest that complex life was created from non complex life. really i guess creationists are saying the same thing, just evolutionists are saying slightly complex life arose from slightly less complex life... while creationists are saying a massively complex life arose from nothing.

quote:

---

More generally, the comment is that given two scenarios that equally explain the given phenomenon, the one that is less complex is preferred since there are fewer elements required.

---

why is it preferred? why is it more desirable to explain a system with fewer elements? when it comes to making basic assumptions about life why should it be assumed that the one with less complexity is closer to the truth?

quote:

---

evolutionists suggest that complex life was created from non complex life. really i guess creationists are saying the same thing, just evolutionists are saying slightly complex life arose from slightly less complex life... while creationists are saying a massively complex life arose from nothing.

---

No, creationists believe that the massively complex life form always existed, and the origin of its complexity does not require explanation.

quote:

---

when it comes to making basic assumptions about life why should it be assumed that the one with less complexity is closer to the truth?

---

The assumption is not that the simpler answer should be accepted in every case. The assumption is that the simpler answer should be considered first. This makes sense because if the simpler option is adequate to explain the data, you don't have to consider more elaborate explanations. However, if the simpler explanation is inadequate, you may understand how many additional factors need to be added to it to arrive at a sufficient explanation.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

TheoMorphic responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And we have the problem of those who make the claim of "too complex" and thus god is required to make it. If this universe is "too complex," then surely god is even more complex and if the universe is "too complex," then the even greater complexity of god is "too complex" and thus requires an uber-god to explain its existence.

---

​

i don't know about this. a given state of complexity does not necessarily require an even more complex entity to create it.

---

But the argument is that it is. If you deny that something is "too complex" and thus requires an "intelligent designer" to create it, then the whole argument from complexity falls apart.

quote:

---

snowflakes are the easiest example... however evolutionists suggest that complex life was created from non complex life.

---

You're trying to have it both ways. If highly complex objects can arise from less complex reagents, then what is to prevent life from being just such a thing.By the way, snowflakes are not more complex than liquid water. They are less so.

quote:

---

while creationists are saying a massively complex life arose from nothing.

---

But they are trying to have it both ways. They are saying that life, the universe, and everything are "too complex" to have happened all on their own, therefore they must have been "created" by god. But if that is the case, then god must necessarily be even more complex than life, the universe, and everything. And if life, the universe, and everything can't happen all on their own, then god can't, either, and thus god must have been "created" by an uber-god.Similarly, that uber-god requires a super-uber-god and that super-uber-god requires an ultra-super-uber-god which requires....

quote:

---

quote:

---

More generally, the comment is that given two scenarios that equally explain the given phenomenon, the one that is less complex is preferred since there are fewer elements required.

---

​

why is it preferred?

---

Because what is the benefit of using two pieces when one is sufficient and achieves the identical result?

quote:

---

why is it more desirable to explain a system with fewer elements?

---

Because there is no reason to add unnecessary elements. If we can find a model that fits everything perfectly, what reason is there to assume the addition of extra fiddly bits?

quote:

---

when it comes to making basic assumptions about life why should it be assumed that the one with less complexity is closer to the truth?

---

What's so special about life? The reason we go for the less-involved model is because it does not add unnecessary steps. That applies to finding models about life, too.Don't get stuck on the idea that Occam's Razor is about finding the simplest possible method. Instead, it is about finding the simplest necessary method. The Razor is "Pluralitas
non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "Do not needlessly multiply entities." Your model can be as complex as it needs to be, but only as much as it needs to be.For what reason should a model go beyond what is necessary?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

By the way, snowflakes are not more complex than liquid water. They are less so.

---

really? i figured the emergence of a pattern out of the random arrangements of water indicated complexity. just as a wild guess if you mean a given volume of water has more molecules than ice so it has more complexity, then just look at a liquid that becomes denser as it cools (but that was just a wild guess as to what you'll say).

quote:

---

But they are trying to have it both ways. They are saying that life, the universe, and everything are "too complex" to have happened all on their own, therefore they must have been "created" by god. But if that is the case, then god must necessarily be even more complex than life, the universe, and everything. And if life, the universe, and everything can't happen all on their own, then god can't, either, and thus god must have been "created" by an uber-god.

---

i don't want to get into the reasons as to why life is too complex for evolution to explain it (specifically because i don't support this assertion).I don't have problems with complexity arising out of nothing. my point is that (even though no creationists actually say this) a god with out a more complex creator goes along the same lines as life with out a more complex creator.so who's to say which is right? occam's razor says that we should work with the scientific model first because it has less moving parts. but with out knowing reality we don't know if science's set of assumptions are closer to the truth.which... yeah that's pretty much inconsequential. it'll work for me until one of the basic assumptions of science are not enough to explain what we observe.

If I may have a stab at this: I think that what Rrhain means is that the water molecules in a snow flake are more restricted in their movements than the same molecules in liquid condition. In other words: you need a more complex mathematical model to describe the liquid situation than you do for the snow flake.As to Occam's razor: each element of an explanation comes with an explanation of it own. So each additional element of an explanation adds to its complexity. And each unnecessary element of an explanation adds unnecessarily to its complexity.Cheers.------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-18-2003]

TheoMorphic responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

By the way, snowflakes are not more complex than liquid water. They are less so.

---

​

really? i figured the emergence of a pattern out of the random arrangements of water indicated complexity.

---

No, the number of possible arrangements in a snowflake is much less than the possible arrangements in liquid water.

quote:

---

just as a wild guess if you mean a given volume of water has more molecules than ice so it has more complexity, then just look at a liquid that becomes denser as it cools (but that was just a wild guess as to what you'll say).

---

It has nothing to do with the number of molecules. It has to do with their possible arrangements. Crystalline solids have fewer quantum states than liquids do. That's why they have less absolute entropy.

quote:

---

i don't want to get into the reasons as to why life is too complex for evolution to explain it (specifically because i don't support this assertion)

---

But that is the argument from complexity. Life can't have arisen on its own because it is "too complex" and that level of complexity requires an intelligence to direct it. But by that logic, god is even more complex and since life is already beyond the threshhold of "complexity" for being able to exist on its own without a creator, then god requires a creator, too.

quote:

---

my point is that (even though no creationists actually say this) a god with out a more complex creator goes along the same lines as life with out a more complex creator.

---

That's my point, too. If god is capable of coming into existence without the need for an uber-god, why can't life? It obviously isn't a question of "too complex."

quote:

---

so who's to say which is right?

---

Logic. If you have a model that seemingly works in every test you have come up for it, why would you discard it for a model that is identical except for these extra fiddly bits?

quote:

---

but with out knowing reality we don't know if science's set of assumptions are closer to the truth.

---

That's what testing is for. Science does not sit still. Every single theory is continually tested and verified against new information and data. When we find instances where it doesn't hold, it will be discarded for a more accurate model. But until then, why discard it for an identical model with whipped cream and sprinkles?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

so maybe creationists would have an easier time if they said "well, ok we'll give you that complex life can arise from nothing... we think so too in fact... take a look at god for example" and then go on to spew misinformation and psudoscience.at any rate, can you explain the water thing a bit more? a given volume of water has more different states than a crystalline snowflake. doesn't adding molecules to a volume increase the number of state too?i notice the emergence of a pattern... it's one thing to deal out all 52 cards and just get a random order of cards... but it's another to get all the reds on one side, and all the black on the other... or all the suits together.

A liquified human has far more states than a normal, living human. That's a horrible definition of complexity.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

TheoMorphic responds to me:

quote:

---

at any rate, can you explain the water thing a bit more?

---

The statistical definition of entropy is:S = k ln WWhere k is the Boltzmann constant and W is the number of quantum states available.In a crystalline solid, the number of quantum states is restricted due to the fact that in order to remain a crystal, the atoms need to remain in certain positions.Liquids, however, have more states. Liquids are fluid and the atoms do not need to be so rigidly positions in order to maintain liquidity. You can have many more arrangements of molecules.Gas is even more complex. There's practically no limit to the arrangements of the molecules.

quote:

---

a given volume of water has more different states than a crystalline snowflake. doesn't adding molecules to a volume increase the number of state too?

---

Yes, adding molecules increases the number of states. Two molecules in a box has more quantum states available than one molecule in a box.But we're not adding molecules. We're taking the same molecules and simply changing their phase. If we lock them down into a crystal, then they must conform to that crystalline pattern in order to remain so. Remove that restriction so we get a liquid, then there are more states. Remove it even more so that we get a gas, and there are even more.

quote:

---

i notice the emergence of a pattern... it's one thing to deal out all 52 cards and just get a random order of cards... but it's another to get all the reds on one side, and all the black on the other... or all the suits together.

---

Who said they were random? Just because you can't see the order doesn't mean it isn't there.But even so, it takes more effort to describe a jumble of cards than it does to describe them if they are sorted. Thus, the jumble is more complex than the ordered.Just what do you think "complexity" is? How could it be measured?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Theomorphic. I don't understand how you can state that evolution requires that life arise from nothing. There is no truth in that statement at all. It is my impression that you are likely talking about Big Bang theory. It also occurs to me that a creation By God is not from nothing .If there is already a God then there must be something in place no? Your card analogy falls apart on the same basis since you are beginning with a deck of cards and not nothing.
I agree that it seems unreasonable for a universe to begin from nothing. But that is true whether you equate it with either God or the Big Bang.This is more likely a psychological bias since we have existence already and cannot picture ourselves as non-existent.The same psychology need not apply to the universe though.Occams razor is also a neccesity to prevent endless "theories" of origin and allow us to begin to build a case based on what the evidence tells us and not on our human needs and agendas.

quote:

---

Theomorphic. I don't understand how you can state that evolution requires that life arise from nothing. There is no truth in that statement at all. It is my impression that you are likely talking about Big Bang theory.

---

i'm not talking about the basic question of matter, i'm talking about the complexity of life. Evolutions say complex life arose from non-complex life, a critique of this could be that something of complexity X must have been created by something of complexity of greater than X... but i'm not actually arguing for this position. What i'm saying is that if creationists were to just given in and say "ok fine, we'll admit complex life can arise from not so complex life" they could then just go on and say "and so there is no longer a logical flaw with saying god created all life".There is a certain logical flaw in rejecting evolution because it requires that complex comes from not complex... and instead asserting the existence of a god that also came from not complex.(i hope this is clear... i'm having trouble expressing myself).ok... and as for complexity, to clarify the definition: complex objects contain elements (components) that are in some way ordered. So a block of granite of intermixed minerals is less "complex" than a teeter-totter made from the same granite. The more components that make up the overall (and contributing to it's order) makes the thing more complex.maybe a better word would be order. evolution asserts that order can arise from not so ordered.edit: added quote for clarity[This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 09-19-2003]

Theomorphic You have helped to clarify by the change from "nothing" to "less complex". I think I read somewhere about artists who carve rock do so not by carving rock to suit a design but rather by chipping away the unessential parts to reveal what was there all along.That would be Occam's razor.