I mean, it's fun, I'll probably play around some more.. for the same reason we all love puzzle games.
Nuggin,
What is the purpose of science?
It seems like you think the purpose of science is to find truth. But I completely disagree. Science cannot tell us about truth. It can only help us create models of the world we observe. Those models help us manipulate the world.
But the models themselves need not be truth. In fact, there's an infinite regress; you will never get an model or mechanism behind every part of another model. At some point you accept something as "irreducable", or you simply keep basing your mechanisms on a "yet to be known" mechanism.
In physics, I guess the "irreducable" would be atoms. Oh, no, wait, protons and neutrons. Crap. Quarks. No? Gluons? Strings?
And a "yet to be known mechanism" ... what is "randomness" in quantum theory? Or is that just taken as "irreducable"?
Science says nothing about truth. Occam's razor ABSOLUTELY has nothing to do with truth, and EVERYTHING to do with building models to predict and manipulate our world. When it comes to building modles and doing computations, keeping things simple with the least amount of assumptions serves us well. In the face of multiple competing theories, you want the computationally least involved one. You want the most easily extensible one. You want the one that has less mechanisms to change when your model inevitably breaks, because all models are fundamentally descriptions of what we have not yet observed, and new observations consistently do not fit within existing models. That's why the scientific method is so powerful--we can make progress in spite of all this.
But when it comes to truth... there's no way to determine which is the "best", or which is "right." The rules for choosing one "truth" over another are very different for those of choosing one model over another. Why do you think scientific models have anything to do with truth?
I'll give you an example. One truth says nothing about the question, WHY? For those who want an answer to this question, for those who are dissatisfied with having no answer, how is a "truth" with no answer better than a "truth" WITH an answer to this question?
Your argument rests fundamentally on saying that Occam's razor applies to finding "truth." That's a complete misuse of the principle. It's a practical principle about empirical theories. Occam's razor is not useful for that which is not empirical.
I'll stop here for now. I'm not pulling your chain Nuggin. I'm speaking seriously.
Ben