Ockham’s Razor and The Matrix/DNA Theory


 The priest says:

“My brothers, listen to Saint Ockham: why we need the complexity of scientific knowledge if knowing God answers everything?”

Someone said that we don’t need Matrix/DNA Theory and invoked Ockham’s Razor. If History was applied Ockham’s Razor to the Copernican theory of heliocentrism, or to Eistein’s Theory of Relativity, or still, to the theory of gazes, Humanity should have in big prejudice today.

Matrix/DNA Theory suggests changing almost everything but, lets’ take only the astronomical model. My model does not change the number of entities (there are seven different kinds of celestial bodies) but changes the processes of origins of those bodies, changes the dymanics of astronomical systems, changes the function and even the composition, and gives a totally new means to the astronomic building block, included suggesting it as the ancestor of nucleotides, living cells and life. But, the facts that we know today are the same supporting both theories: the official Nebular Theory and the yet individual theory of Matrix/DNA. So, if we follow that “Razor”, we should forget my models? I suggest to the reader to see at:

http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43832  the article by – By Paul Newall (2005) under the title ” Ockham’s Razor”.

Below I mention some texts and comments:  

Ockham’s Razor, otherwise called the principle of the economy of thought, is invoked often in debate, usually to discount one or more theories on the basis that another exists which is simpler or more parsimonious.

The principle of parsimony is typically stated as:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”).

Although referred to as Ockham’s Razor after William of Ockham, a Franciscan living at the turn of the fourteenth century, this version has not be found in any of his extant works. The closest match (Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora or “It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer”) may have been written in quoting others, and indeed the general principle was common among Aristotelians. In brief, the advice is that we should not invoke entities in explaining a phenomenon or developing a theory that are not necessary to do so.

If we wish to hold to economy of thought, we should pick the simpler explanation.

Ockham’s Razor is a principle; that is, it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true (or what there is); but instead that we ought to prefer it on methodological grounds. We are counselled to adopt theories which are minimally efficient, insofar as they can do the same with less. Note that there is apparently no reason why we should do so: a direct route to a destination is neither better nor worse than a diversion unless we include the criterion that we wish to get there by the most direct route (and even then it may not be, so we will return to this analogy later.) Nevertheless, it seems plain enough that we are inclined to favour the simpler explanation, other things being equal.

Tags: , , ,