[ExI] Many Worlds (was: A Simulation Argument)

Ian Goddard iamgoddard at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 7 17:18:50 UTC 2008


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>>  If Occam's razor is a useful rule of thumb and the
>> simulation theory is equally explanatory as the 
>> MWI, we should reject the MWI outright given the 
>> economy of the simulation theory. Indeed, the MWI 
>> would seem to be a prototype violation of Occam's 
>> razor wherein entities (worlds) are multiplied 
>> beyond necessity.
>
> It's a common criticism, but in fact Occam's razor 
> is the main justification of the MWI.
> 
> The "entities" in Occam's razor are assumptions, 
> not quantities of physical objects. 


 So you say Occam's 'entities' mean 'assumptions'.
However, assumptions in a scientific theory typically
point to physical entities. So I'm not sure you've
made a meaningful distinction. 

 For example, describing the 'simplicity' criterion of
scientific theories, Copi & Cohen cite Ptolemy's
theory of celestial orbits versus the Copernican
theory. The two theories were equally effective
explanations and predictors of astronomical data. And
*both* assumed epicycles. But according to Copi &
Cohen, Ptolemy's model should be rejected because it
assumed more epicycles. [1] So for each additional
physical entity (an epicycle) there's an additional
assumption for that entity. So saying assumptions in a
theory are distinct from physical entities posited by
that theory is not a clearly valid claim.

 It's worth noting further that in his 'Rule of
Reasoning in Philosophy', Issac Newton stated what
Cushing calls "essentially Ockham's razor" saying:

  "We are to admit no more causes of natural 
  things than such as are both true and sufficient 
  to explain their appearances." [2]

Now, not only do Occam's 'entities' obviously refer to
physical entities (and as Copi & Cohen utilize their
given example), but certainly Newton's 'causes' refer
to countable physical causes out in the world. So here
again Many Worlds looks to be in violation of the
simplicity criterion, for it posits the branching off
of a new world as the cause of an appearance, and
again and again ad infinitum... ~Ian    

_____________________________________________________
[1] Copi, IM., C Cohen. 'Introduction to Logic', page
539, 1994.
[2] Cushing, JT. 'Philosophical Concepts in Physics',
page 166, 1998.


http://IanGoddard.net

"A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of
being a picture of reality." - Wittgenstein




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list