Posted by Tal on May 01, 1999 at 20:12:08:
In Reply to: Re: Meeting GOD via the enneagram -Poster posing as GOD.... posted by Marcus on May 01, 1999 at 13:28:54:
> As for Nature always taking the simplest route, yes it does. It doesn't matter if WE can CONCEIVE of a simpler route;the only reason Nature dis not take a route we consider simpler than the one chosen is either becasue it couldn't due to natual laws or becasue there is a factor(s) involved that made the course easier though to our eyes it looks more complicated.
The reason I included the second half of my reply was in response to this line of argument. But let me elaborate. In order to decide if nature always takes the easiest path, let's consider scenarios in which God does and does not exist.
If God exists, then the universe is God's creation. A creation does not have to be easy; it does not have to be the simplest alternative available. An artist paints for beauty, not for simplicity (though sometimes they overlap). A square on a piece of paper is a functional image, but it's not the Mona Lisa. God, by virtue of its omnipotence, can naturally create laws and reality as it sees fit, without regard to simplicity.
Taking the other case, if we say there is no God, then we reduce the creation of the universe to chance. But what of probability? Probability is not compatible with nature always taking the easier course, since if nature always took the simplest available path, probability would not exist (probability being nothing if not the possibility that unlikely, complex events can occur too).
To say that nature always takes the easiest path is to say that our universe happens to be the 'simplest' possible. Now, there are a number of problems with this. First, we have nothing to compare it to. Secondly, the moment you say it is necessarily the simplest possibility that could have occured, probability ceases to exist. If probability ceases to exist, it follows that *any* action taken is always the simplest, given its context. This is not convincing, naturally.
Then you can also consider the case from a separate point of view; that of more linear logic. To say something is the 'simplest' possibility is obviously to say there are other, more complex ones. Something is 'simpler' or more 'complicated' only by comparison. Now, take the laws of nature: to what can we compare them to? Nothing. We know only the laws of nature that appear to us. Therefore we have no comparison. We may be able to conceive of other alternatives, both simpler and more complex, but we have no way of verifying if they were in fact options to begin with (when the universe was being created). Not to mention that this once more brings into question probability, which we've already ruled out. So now, a person can say "gee, gravity is kind of complicated, I can think of something simpler" but he cannot know if it really is simpler or if it was a possible alternative to begin with. In other words, one cannot determine whether any law of nature, objectively speaking, is ever the 'simplest' one.
If you accept probability (and I believe elsewhere you yourself remarked that given enough time *all* possibilities would happen) then you accept that the easiest solution is *not* always the one that takes place. Let's say I painted two sides of a die with the same number--the die is more likely to fall on that number, but it does not rule out other possibilities. The only possible retort to *this* line of argument is to say "simplicity is not like chance," but in fact it very much is the case, since if there is the probability of a more complicated solution coming into use exists, it can happen (and again, you cannot prove that this is not the case). Probability dictates that the process creates the effect, not vice versa, which would have to be the case for nature to always take the simplest route (in other words, nature would have to say, "right, here's what I want the outcome to be. Now what's the easiest way to do this.")
Even if you *don't* accept the existence of probability (which is difficult to do, in my opinion), you still have no way of knowing whether nature takes the easiest path available. In all eventualities, you cannot tell. So to sum up: if God exists, he does not have to seek simplicity at all, since it matters little to him which solution he chooses. If God does not exist but probability does, then all solutions to a problem stand to happen, not just the simplest. And if God doesn't exist and neither does probability, then you're left with no way to tell whether nature takes the easy way in any case.
Personally I am not sure whether there is a God or not, but I do believe in probability, so I think I can relatively safely say nature does *not* always take the easiest path. But no matter how you look at it, you can never say with confidence that it always does so.
Which is why Ockham's razor applies only to the proposed *explanations* for reality, not to reality itself. It states that given two theories explaining the same thing, it's probable that the simplest is the truth. But as for reality itself, there is no such guarantee.