Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 359

Occam's Razor is not a valid proof technique and involves a subjective judgment call. It is a way to move forward under uncertain conditions that has a pretty good track record though. One if it main strengths is that usually simpler constructs survive better and hence are more prevalent. In science and technology, it matches well with the golden rule of constructing anything, namely KISS.

There are some areas where it seems to fail catastrophically though. For example, in Physics, both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are not consistent with it, or it is unclear what it would advocate. (To make matters worse, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are also not consistent with each other, i.e. they cannot both be true unless Physics is even more fundamentally wrong.) Now, Occam's Razor would probably suggest here that somebody is messing with us and that makes the simulation scenario or the presence of a god that does it a likely scenario. On the other hand, there is really no good other evidence for those models.

In reality, Occam's Razor probably works best when amended to say "Prefer the most simple explanation, unless you have good indications it is way off, and move to more complex explanations when validation of the most simple one fails. Also make very sure you understand complexity and do that validation carefully."

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 359

It is one valid world model, because it could be true from what we can observe. But so is solipsism, for example, and some other bizarre constructs. You cannot derive the probabilities for any of the these models being the true one from theoretical arguments, and that is what Hossenfelder probably objects to, and rightfully so.

For a large collection of invalid "proofs" of a certain world model, look, for example, at the large collection of "proofs" that God exists.

Comment Re:Stealth Layoff (Score 5, Insightful) 290

This is however really the most demented way to do it, because only those that are good at what they do (and hence have other prospects) will leave. The ones staying will include all that have no prospects. Do this several times and you may as well close down the department and re-start from scratch.

Why again are the people that make such decisions so much money? Oh right, because they know how to give the appearance of knowing how to do their job.

Comment Re:Chicken are deeply stupid (Score 1) 330

What does a limitation on scientific proof have to do with what happens in reality? Science does not define what is real. It only defines what can be proven scientifically to be real. It even has a hypothesis (Goedel's incompleteness) that states this, but cannot be proven itself. Throwing around terminology you do not understand does not make you look smart, it makes you look dumb.

Incidentally, you may well be wrong on that unfalsifiability. But since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, I will overlook that, as you have nothing worthwhile to contribute anyways.

Slashdot Top Deals

You will have many recoverable tape errors.

Working...