Message-ID: <33ECD724.F6A9EDC0@utoronto.ca>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 16:46:28 -0400
From: Danny <daniel.fisla@utoronto.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Occam's Razor (was Re: Semantic alphabet)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <19970805130300.JAA01182@ladder01.news.aol.com> <33E73BDE.109C@not_silly.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: shiva1-n4-ip122-toronto.ica.net
Lines: 34
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!honeysuckle!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!206.222.68.6!news.rns.net!lightning.ica.net!shiva1-n4-ip122-toronto.ica.net

The Walrus wrote:

> TRINITINE wrote:
> >
> > <snip> Occam's
> > Razor says the simplest answer is the best.
>
> This has always been a source of worry for me. Why would anyone want
> to
> evaluate any function in terms of how simple it is? It assumes that
>
> a) Truth can be found.
> b) Truth is simple.
>
> I prefer my own Razor:
>
> When there are a number of explanations, all of which are equally
> valid,
> the most (elegant/beautiful/even complex) is best.
>
> Why expect life to be easy?
>
> walrus.

I must agree with you. I have always been worried about simplistic
assumptions. (if any not all assumptions)
Many have searched for simplistic beauty, by logical & geometrical forms
or other, only to fail.

I believe, the crutial thing for mankind is the study of paradox
phenomenon. However, since I'm not an expert in this field at all, I can
only spectulate on the various methods of study.


