Q&A: A Simple World
A Simple World
Question
Hello,
I’d like to ask a question that won’t leave me alone.
The principle of simplicity is a fundamental principle, and some would say the only one behind the way we draw our conclusions. When two explanations account for the same facts, we choose the simpler explanation.
That is true in science and also in law.
So the question arises: reality can be explained as dualism — material and spiritual.
Or alternatively, all of reality and matter are part of a multi-participant mental dimension (like in a computer game or a dream, where matter is mental).
There is a religious doctor online who claims that much of modern physics supports this.
I wanted to ask you: if both explain the same facts, why not choose that one? It sounds strange, but it is simpler. Is that really so? Intuition and common sense say this is complete nonsense, but can it be refuted?
Discussion on Answer
Much appreciated. For some reason it escaped me.
I’m not sure the discussion there is relevant here. My claim here is that choosing an explanation based on its simplicity requires a definition of simplicity. That is not determined only by the number of entities one assumes, but also by the prior probability.
And one should add that the solipsistic assumption is not simpler, because it requires elaborate mechanisms of hallucination and illusion. And even in terms of the number of entities, conscious entities are also entities for purposes of this discussion.
C
I sincerely apologize for the lack of response. I didn’t have access to the site in recent days; there was some kind of problem entering data here, but I’d be happy to continue from here, and I believe I’ll have access in the coming days.
You wrote that one first has to define the concept of simplicity, which depends on prior probability. But the principle of simplicity assumes that all entities have the same prior probability, and therefore it is always preferable to choose the smallest possible number of entities, provided that it explains everything.
The assumption that matter too is part of a mental dimension does not require elaborate mechanisms of illusion. We never see the thing in itself anyway; just as in a dream one can imagine ground, there is no reason to assume that the eyes do not see the ground within a mental dimension. Intuition too is part of the mental.
Even the scientific view today is that matter itself is not necessarily found in a “solid state,” but can exist as waves or as a field of possibilities. Those too are not part of original common sense.
If so, why would the simplicity one may assume on the basis of philosophical principles not lead us to the conclusion that matter, including every phenomenon in the world, is an expression of “consciousness,” whether as an interaction among the mental entities operating in our world.
Could you answer seriously one more time? And a last time 🙂
I don’t see what there is to answer. I already answered everything.
I don’t know what to add about the mistake you wrote; maybe quoting your words will help: {My claim here is that choosing an explanation based on its simplicity requires a definition of simplicity. That is not determined only by the number of entities one assumes, but also by the prior probability}!!
But clearly the principle of simplicity grants all explanations the same prior probability, and among them recommends choosing the simpler explanation.
Otherwise we wouldn’t use it at all, but would simply assume the conclusion we want, and that’s it.
All this is provided that the explanations fully explain what is happening. If that is indeed not the case, then the principle of simplicity does not apply — but that is not the case here. A multi-participant mental dimension explains everything exactly like dualism does.
In column 674 I meant my reply in the talkbacks there: https://mikyab.net/posts/89524/#comment-88216
For some reason I remember there being a column where I laid out the failures in using the razor principle, but right now I can’t find it.