View Full Version : Occam's Razor and Maybe Logic

09-03-2006, 10:53 AM
Occam's Razor

From Wikipedia:

"Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation."

"Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."

An easier way of describing Occam's Razor is to say that the simplest solution to a problem is usually the most likely.
Or, the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the most accurate.

This can be a tough pill to swallow for many of those who are born into an environment that attributes many elements of this world to supernatural-type entities.

The pyramids are a prime example.
The debate seems to generally consist of the elements that they pyramids were too big of a task to be carried out by humans, but on the other hand, we have no verifiable reason to believe that anything other than humans were on this planet to construct the pyramids.

What is the most likely solution?

That humans did it somehow. But a truly open-minded person would probably maintain the possibility that some one/thing else had a hand in it until there was verifiable proof.

This is where Maybe Logic comes in:

Maybe Logic

(from the Maybe Logic Academy website)

"an approach which emphasizes the fallibility and relativity of perception and tends to approach information and observations with questions, probabilities and multiple perspectives rather than absolute truths."

If a person took a Maybe Logic approach to things, they would have to become familiar with terms such as:
could have happened

This approach is not popular in a world where people demand definitive answers, but perhaps it is a better approach to take in a world where definitive answers simply do not exist.

Where pride prevents a person from admitting that they do not know the answer to a question, Maybe Logic is an approach that allows people to overcome this and learn to be proud of the fact that they do not know the answer to a question.

From my experience, it seems to me that the best approach a person can take to learning is to combine Occam's Razor with Maybe Logic.

If a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Occam's Razor suggests that it does.
Maybe Logic suggests that it might not.

Combine the two together, and it seems intelligent to say 'probably, but I don't know for sure.'

For those seeking to prove theories for which there is no verifiable proof (such as the existence or non-existence of an entity/entities), they cause themselves unnecessary aggrevation by trying to do the impossible.

How do you SHOW something that cannot be seen?

For those who are quick to ignore or dismiss theories, but live in a world where they still do not fully understand what is going on or why things happen, perhaps they should consider allowing a few more 'maybes' to into their perspective.

Instead of being afraid of the unknown, it would be wise to embrace an opportunity to learn.


09-05-2006, 11:25 AM
I don't know, maybe.

09-05-2006, 08:09 PM
I had just been coming to similar conclusions myself.

I realized that I, and people in general I dare say, when taking a point of view which is challenged react by sticking even more stubbornly by it.

When I say something and someone hold an alternative point of view, it is likely that the truth is some where mid-way between the two views.

It is extremely hard to take on a view which conflicts with your own, examine it objectively, and review what you believe in the light of what you conclude.

There is a line in a devil's reject song by Jus Allah which reminds me of this concept (I don't know if it is anything like he intended) - "Once I worked out how to weigh in my brain I shifted gears."

This is the maybe logic I have been finding, the maybe that you aren't 100% right, maybe that the other person's point of view is right, and maybe that neither is completely whole in itself.

When you think about it - two heads (or perspectives, or points of view) are better than one. The only way this can be true is when information is pooled and shared, and both views can be developed by each other.

09-05-2006, 08:16 PM
How do you think this would work in terms of atheism vs. God? You could always expand and learn more about both but the ideas themselves will always be at odds with each other, or at least, that seems to be the case.

09-05-2006, 08:39 PM
still discussing the same old shit greek greek philosophers died over hah

09-05-2006, 09:57 PM
still discussing the same old shit greek greek philosophers died over hah
come on yo

how you figure that?

what brings you to that conclusion?

09-05-2006, 11:00 PM
the beliefe that there is an absolute truth. something that everyone will agree that is good and right. It still amazes in this day and time not everyone is a critical thinker....

09-05-2006, 11:22 PM
the beliefe that there is an absolute truth. something that everyone will agree that is good and right. It still amazes in this day and time not everyone is a critical thinker....

you bring up a good point

there is such a big difference between critical thinkers and non-critical thinkers, its almost like 2 different species

09-05-2006, 11:25 PM
I think the problems with religion and atheism is that they are so difficult to express in words.

For example I don't believe in an after life, in the literal sense, but I also do believe in heaven, enlightenment or whatever you want to call it.

I don't believe in what most people would classify as God. But I do believe in an infinite force beyond my logical comprehension.

In short my opinion is that most religious concepts are just metaphorical and poetic ways of expressing truths about our universe. The incompatability comes when people become attached to certain words or ways of describing these things.

Also, two ideas can come together and one may have more to offer. I don't think two ideas can always be compromised or reconciled, but they can certainly impact each other.

09-05-2006, 11:28 PM
^^no the problem is that useually people who are a part of an orginzized relegion are not critical thinkers. its a cop out, everyone who is a part of X faith follows X laws and belives X. It promotes thinking inside of a box. The main problem with most people is the lack to look at things from other perspectives, ignorance is almost always the #1 problem.

09-05-2006, 11:38 PM
^^^ wrong thread. Coz in this thread that is the problem. Coz you don't have any objective way of knowing that MAYBE their view is actually right.

I don't personally agree with organised religion, but I can't say I am 100% right in that view.

You said if they would look at things from other perspectives they wouldn't be so ignorant. That is what I am saying too, essentially.

BOTH sides need to do that, not just one.

09-06-2006, 10:21 AM
How do you SHOW something that cannot be seen?

Human senses: sight, smell, taste, touch(feeling, felt) and hearing.

People will synthesize(synthesis) those senses to create logic

09-06-2006, 11:25 AM
Before it reaches logic, people synthesize:who, what, where, how, when, and why

Once logic is created people experiment(test, prove) to make it fact

09-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Before it reaches logic, people synthesize:who, what, where, how, when, and why

Once logic is created people experiment(test, prove) to make it fact


you trying to convince yourself?

09-06-2006, 01:16 PM

you trying to convince yourself?

No, but to show improve people would have to combine both of what those two men speak

If they did not combine those two, civilization would not have come this far

Like real life math, some problems have a defined solution where others are undefined based on mathematical equations

09-06-2006, 01:24 PM

you trying to convince yourself?

I also think you misunderstood when i said experiment,
some of the human senses covers an experiment

but also an experiment can be reccurence

09-19-2006, 04:57 PM
Nice thread.

Here's (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=7F3E87DB33BBC799) an mp3 to Robert Anton Wilson(RAW) giving a brief synopsis of Maybe Logic, keep in mind tbat at this point he has been stricken witgh Post-Polio Syndrome, and his speech is a bit impaired. Still I highly recommend listening to this and any other RAW mp3 you can find( I have most of them) He is an extremely engaging speaker, funny and highly intelligent.

he also has a DVD out called Maybe Logic

Sicka than aidZ
09-20-2006, 11:03 PM
occam's tryin to say the best solution is no problem or whatever, phenomon(i dont know how to spell that shit) at all. Kinda like bruce lee saying the fastest distance between 2 points is a straight line.