Occam's Razor seems to be incorrect

But it's pretty generally accepted, so I think I may merely misunderstand it.

My understanding is that it states that 'Given two possible theories, that which is less complicated is usually correct.'

However, this seems patently untrue. Let me tell you, Newtonian physics are WAY simpler than modern physics. However, modern physics are provably more accurate than Newtonian physics.

I know that pretty much all of you would say Jack Chick is a complete idiot, but to me, at least, a Supreme Being holding the universe together makes more sense than Gravity. Seriously, gravity is weird shit. But, I'm pretty sure that Jesus isn't literally holding everything to keep it from falling apart, and that Gravity is indeed the force behind it.

So am I missing something, or is Occam's Razor just wrong?

P.S., please please please don't derail this into an argument about the Jesus theory making less sense than Gravity theory. I'm literally begging you.

Key word being "usually".

You shouldn't say exactly how not to derail, because then the derail will happen.

Occam's Razor only comes in when the hypotheses are equal in other respects, like for example how well they correlate with our observations. Newtonian physics obviously results in inaccurate predictions more often than relativistic physics do.

edited 10th Oct '11 5:09:17 PM by Tzetze

Occams razor just means given all the information that we have. Newtonian physics doesn't account for everything which we know, which is why there is modern physics.

If you take it to mean "the simpler answer is always the true one" well then, it would almost always be wrong.

How, how, how does anyone ever learn this concept without learning this part. It's literally the most important part of the razor.

It's not an exact mantra, it never was intended that way. It's just as case of "use common sense for the most part instead of conceiving of implausible fantastic explanations". Even though, to use David Hume's example (he rejected Occam's Razor IIRC) a ship passing through a wake may not have created it (some other force at the same time could have done the same thing, common sense says that there's a pretty good liklihood that the ship did cause the wake.

Getting into exactitudes about it is Completely Missing The Point really.

The simplest theory that explains all the data is usually correct. Newtonian physics don't explain all the data anymore.

It's all been said already, but one might add that Occam's Razor does not make assertions whether a theory is "correct" or not. It just is a guideline as to which theory you should prefer. For in (empirical) science, theories are not "correct" or "false", they are just better or worse.

That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

I'll write that as many times as it takes for someone to acknowledge it.

In what regard? At the observable non-quantum level gravity behaves the same in relativistic terms as it does Newtonian terms.

Likewise velocity, momentum, inertia, the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and more all work the same at both the quantum and Newtonian systems.

That would be because quantum is a general case that explicitly reduces to classical in certain specific limits. It doesn't make quantum any less worthwhile.

edited 10th Oct '11 5:42:37 PM by Pykrete

No. The example that's often brought up is the motion of Mercury. Inconsistencies with Newtonian predictions of such were one of Einstein's first important data points for his theories.

Er, wait, are you confusing quantum physics and relativistic physics?

edited 10th Oct '11 5:41:59 PM by Tzetze

This thread is based on a misunderstanding. Which deathjavu has corrected. Twice. I don't see what else there is to say.

Yep. We should all demand a lock ASAP before people like me show up in droves.

Can I be one of the People showing up in droves?

I'm good at blatantly misinterpreting a topic, causing it to descend into flame war!

Lets lock this thread, it doesn't have anything else to say.

Sounds like a plan.

Locking.