Legga has disappeared on me so I thought I would bring the discussion here so that we hop back into it when he returns and to give others the ability to chime in.
Legga said:Context: Discussing God, Occam's Razor, and Bayesian Framework
20:15 Legga: Oh, I believe it is a law
20:15 Legga: Not in the colloquial sense that it is usually used
20:15 Legga: But Occam's razor can be derived as a probabilistic statement to disfavor hypotheses that require complexity
20:16 Legga: In the colloquial sense that it is used, I'd agree with you, but Occam's razor arises naturally from Bayesian analysis
20:17 Legga: there's a way to show, mathematically, that if there are two hypotheses which are both consistent with the evidence, it is more likely that the more simple hypothesis is correct
20:17 Legga: as in statistically more likely
20:19 Legga: Which means that as long as one accepts the necessary axioms to arrive at Bayesian analysis, one has to also accept the existence of Occam's razor as a `law`
Yes, I see your viewpoint and accept It more or less.
The key here is the framework, most of us accept one and use some more than others but they all have their limitations ofc. I find Bayes useful in particular situations and even more so profound as a framework, but I wouldn’t accept it as the framework that rules over my intuition about God.
As all frameworks do for me, I use everything I see and study as a means to understand God just a tad bit better and can even find myself questioning the validity of the idea depending on the framework.
Ofc when it comes to Bayes it would be hard to say much on God, we may think we could given some selection of priors but I do think we’d be kidding ourselves given the complexity of the question in the first place.
I’m only pointing this out, I am aware that you are brining up bayes to speak of Occam’s razor but as you previously stated Occam’s razor under your Bayesian view would make God as an explanation less likely than simpler explanations. My question would be “how did you define god”, “How do you define simplicity and complexity”, “What is ‘God’ in this case attempting to explain”.
I find practically all attempts to disprove God on these grounds weak because it waters down the notion of God, simplicity, and complexity.
I have a bias here though I must add because I have studied Christianity and Judaism from a deeply conceptual and etymological stand point – I study God and its meaning across languages and when you do this you find that consensus Is difficult but more importantly that etymologically speaking our conception of the word and it’s other forms have become quite weak.
Legga said:20:22 Legga: or maybe we're talking about laws in a different sense
This is the case, a law for me would have to transcend frameworks and always be true.
20:22 Legga: I just tend to think that science and the supernatural require two different sets of axioms to analyze
I used to think a long these lines but my study into the foundations of mathematics, the history of science, and the history of religion and culture annihilated this view.
Mathematics and all the comes from it is objectively baseless in my view. This is something I’ve tried to shake but every time I do it only confirms my view further. When first confronted by I was heart broken but now I find nothing but infinite depth and beauty as a result.
The consequence of this is we are constantly taking a leap of faith into convention before accepting some framework.
Now your view of two sets of axioms fits with this nicely just as mine did.
As I delved into the development of math’s, sciences, and culture I found God first and then found all else through some evolutionary process regardless of the culture in question.
I found that my mistake was starting with the mathematical and scientific conventions and axioms to find God, it has never worked for me.
If I start with God however, I am confronted with mathematics, science, and all else.
It was a problem with initial conditions in my case.
I am not saying this is absolute truth, there are problems with this framework but it works and is quite convincing in many regards plus serves grand utility for myself as it did for the great minds that created many of the scientific conventions we know and love.
Legga said:20:25 Legga: But sorry, I didn't let you explain
20:42 Legga: I'm also curious what you mean by Goethan view of science and why that view allows for belief in the supernatural.
The Goethean view starts with a hidden metaphysical realm, hence there is more than just matter.
So we have both an immaterial realm and a material realm, obviously science as we know it lives in the latter. Goethean idealism, and this is more specifically something quite German, wishes to bridge the two so that a more wholistic view can be reached and understood. A Goethean believes fundamentally that the immaterial and material have correspondence.
In this case ideals precept reality (they come before reality), they are potentiality in carnet while reality itself (the thing we observe and study) is merely an actualization of the idea.
Given Goethean science is just a form of phenomenology it can easily talk about God as well as mechanics.
Why should I accept this framework though? That is the question that confronts any framework. As per usual the answer is the utility it gives me personally. I begin with everything is theory, and that gives me a lot at my disposal. I can accept a Bayesian framework at any moment of my choosing and use it with rigor where it applies. I can do this with any material framework, because in this case a framework is merely a means to an end. I
I am a mathematician before a statistician, while you are a statistician first and for most it seems. I must have a looser framework than you to explore mathematics for the sake of its beauty because not all its beauty can be justified in some purely rationalistic or probabilistic way. You must have a tighter framework because you are testing the validity of some hypothesis.
This shows that constraints on frameworks reflect the nature of the question. So, what of the question of God? I would think the framework must be quite loose. But does it have to be separate? If you are purely a materialist, yes, they must be separate. If you are an immaterialist, yes, they must be separate. If you are both, there is no need for separation but may be a simple question of order.
Legga said:20:44 Legga: I'm asking mostly because lately I've started to look more into proofs for God
20:48 Legga: and I feel somewhat alone in my endeavor because, well, not many people think the same way I do. Which is why I was surprised to find that you believe in God despite working in the natural sciences.
As I said previously, I enjoy proofs of God in the spirit of tradition, they are fun and can sharpen your your logic, but I would not use them in a serious way to prove or disprove God. I am not comfortable with it regardless of outcome. As you know there are a many of proofs that go every which way on the subject, and they can be said to be logically consistent. As such I think they say more about their framework than they do about God.
I can understand your surprise and I do find it an unfortunate one given the commonality in the sciences that informs it.
