The paradox of overunity

[WilbyInebriated]

I do not know what caused the first dense kernel of matter to exist. Applying occam's razor (using the simplest possible explanation) it always existed.

If we don't apply occam's razor, we end up hunting for what 'caused' the first particles to exist, and then what 'caused' the things that caused the things that caused the first particles to exist etc.

A never ending logical regression (as is all causality if one overlooks the fact there has only ever been one event which began 13.7 billion years ago and is still happening).

Logically the simplest explanation is best.

1. The simplest explanation is that matter and energy always existed.

2. For reasons unknown to me, in the first few moments of what became the universe, density and thus magnetic field strengths were enormous. Perhaps trillions of Tesla.

3. These unimaginably powerful magnetic fields may have converted 'no thing' or void into matter and energy. Which is to say magnetic forces may have drawn particles from other dimensions into existence. Both Cern and Fermilab are now investigating this possibility.

4. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The particles that came from 'no thing' (from another dimension) could be disappearing, perhaps going back from whence they came. That may be why the books don't balance.

It is interesting to speculate. More interesting than arguing (unless you have been paid in advance).

thanks for attempting to answer my direct questions.

first off, lets clear up your misconceptions about 'occam's razor'... it IS NOT "using the simplest possible explanation". occam's razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place... which big bang does not do. nor do any of the other THEORIES for that matter.

now to your second paragraph, please refer to the actual definition and note that PROPER application of 'the razor' is something you have not done.

the "fact" you talk about being overlooked is not a fact. it is an assumption.

logically the simplest explanation is not categorically "the best", you are still thinking occam's razor means something other that what it actually means.
1. incorrect. that may be the simplest assumption...
2. you have no evidence of this.
3. now you're getting the idea... using words like may, or in my opinion, etc. is the correct way to go about discussing these matters (matters of inference). i'm well aware of what cern and fermilab are wasting funding on.
4. are you claiming to have knowledge of every action? maybe they do and maybe they don't. my personal opinion is that this existence is teaching us lessons in duality. but it's just an opinion.

sure it's interesting to speculate, just don't play off your speculations as facts or 'laws'. now, you can learn from that or if you have been "paid in advance", you can continue to offer up assumptions, speculations and conjecture as factual . 

edit: spelling.

[allcanadian]

@WilbyInebriated

first off, lets clear up your misconceptions about 'occam's razor'... it IS NOT "using the simplest possible explanation". occam's razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place... which big bang does not do. nor do any of the other THEORIES for that matter.

I would agree, when I first learned of "occam's razor" because it was being quoted so much I did some research and was not surprised that most everyone had taken the initial statement completely out of context. What does this mean--the simplest explanation is the best one?, to me it implies that we can just throw our facts out the window and logic with it and rely on simplicity which is a little disturbing. As well we could say selecting a hypothesis with the fewest "assumptions"-- ie..(A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof) implies we are selecting a hypothesis with the greatest proof, proof relating directly to facts.
I think some also make the mistake of thinking that a lack of facts is proof of something such as in the case of OU. That is some claim that they have never seen a working, proven, OU device and this is proof that it is impossible. Well no, I do not think so because a lack of proof is not proof of anything other than we have no facts or proof. This does not prove it is impossible it only proves they have no facts or proof and I'm not sure how anyone could jump to the conclusion that a lack of facts is a fact of anything as none are present, lol, it is all very confusing at times.
Regards
AC

[WilbyInebriated]

@WilbyInebriated I would agree, when I first learned of "occam's razor" because it was being quoted so much I did some research and was not surprised that most everyone had taken the initial statement completely out of context. What does this mean--the simplest explanation is the best one?, to me it implies that we can just throw our facts out the window and logic with it and rely on simplicity which is a little disturbing. As well we could say selecting a hypothesis with the fewest "assumptions"-- ie..(A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof) implies we are selecting a hypothesis with the greatest proof, proof relating directly to facts.
I think some also make the mistake of thinking that a lack of facts is proof of something such as in the case of OU. That is some claim that they have never seen a working, proven, OU device and this is proof that it is impossible. Well no, I do not think so because a lack of proof is not proof of anything other than we have no facts or proof. This does not prove it is impossible it only proves they have no facts or proof and I'm not sure how anyone could jump to the conclusion that a lack of facts is a fact of anything as none are present, lol, it is all very confusing at times.
Regards
AC

as usual, well said. i too see it misused so much, it gets under my skin. kind of like that flawed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument. or people using one theory to invalidate another, ala milehigh, when he's not just making outright assumptions

i know this is 'preaching to the choir' for you but for the rest, a few salient quotes from the wiki:

"Even if Occam's razor is empirically justified, so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in Science. Such other scientific methods are what support the razor's validity as a tool in the first place. This is because measuring the razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories requires the use of different, reliable "theory selecting" methods for corroboration."

"In the history of competing explanations this is certainly not the case. At least, not generally (some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary), and so there remains a justified general bias towards the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses. Ad-hoc hypotheses are justifications which prevent theories from being falsified. Even other empirical criteria like consilience can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an infinite number of alternatives that were more complex and false."

"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models." (emphasis mine)

"In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available. Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles."

"When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry. A number of background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter."

"As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology." (emphasis mine)

"The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.”"



to be quite honest, human knowledge is eyeballs deep in muddy water.

[allcanadian]

@WilbyInebriated

kind of like that flawed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument.  or people using one theory to invalidate another, ala milehigh, when he's not just making outright assumptions

I guess this would depend on what we consider extraordinary, at one point in time the claim that the world was round or that man could fly in a machine was considered extraordinary but this changed as time passed. I find everything concerning nature extraordinary as well as what we call "life" in every form it may take however I find nothing extraordinary about Free Energy as it is obvious we are literally swimming in a sea of energy. That is we know for certain that there is a huge amount of energy bound in matter and in transition through any given space.
I think part of the issue with the critics of free energy is that they are stuck in the past, that is they are still tring to relate everything to Thermodynamics and Entropy which is misleading. For them everything is dead or dying as Entropy dictates and they have essentially ignored the process of life or Syntropy whereby things concentrate energy and grow. Imagine that a process which concentrates energy and grows which in turn concentrates even more energy, it should be no surprise that they literally are what they call impossible which is priceless.
Regards
AC

[onthecuttingedge2010]

All we have is 'observed' evidence of a known classical system, we know little about the quantum mechanical world and we may never know all that there is to know about the 'observed' Universe.

Jerry