From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 00:03:28 EDT
Glenn,
I am a bit puzzled.
Is MWH really the simplest explanation?
Does not "many-worlds" correspond to "plurality"?
JimA
Glenn Morton wrote:
>Jim, you wrote:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:06 PM
>
>
>
>
>>I like the general line of thought here. I don't cotton to the MWH in part
>>
>>
>because it fails
>
>
>>to negotiate Occam's razor.
>>
>>
>
>I would suggest that this is a misuse of Occam. Occam's razor doesn't mean
>that the simplest universe is the most likely. It means 'given the fact at
>hand, the simplest explanation of those facts is the most likely.'
>
>And given the nature of this thread, it is interesting to look at Ockham's
>most famous rendition of his razor. It is "A plurality must not be asserted
>without necessity." A. C. Crombie, Medieval and Early Modern Science, Vo.
>II, (New York: Anchor Books, 1959,P. 30 (It is nice to have my philosophy
>books back.)
>
>At this point in history, without a test having been done, one can't assert
>the multiverse is true. But given evidence, MWH would not violate Ockham.
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 00:03:53 EDT