comments
Respond
Comment on the article
Add a citation
Reply with an article
Start a new topic
Edit
Edit article
Delete article
Share
Invite
Link
Embed
Social media
Avatar
View
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Article ✓
Outline
Document
Down
All
Page
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Updates
Subscribe to updates
Get updates
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
Pause updates
Contact us
Simplicity matters, not ontology
Occam's Razor is fundamentally about conceptual simplicity rather than ontological size.
RELATED ARTICLES
Explain
⌅
The Arrow of Time
The Arrow of Time ☜A map exploring some issues concerning the nature of time that lie at the boundary of physics and philosophy. The map follows up a talk to the Blackheath Philosophy Forum on 2 April 2011 by Huw Price, Professor of Philosophy and director of the Center for Time at Sydney University.☜F1CEB7
⌃
The physics of time
The physics of time☜Is our subjective sense that time has a direction from past to future reflected in impersonal physical processes and laws? Is it better - from the impersonal viewpoint - to look asymmetries in time rather than a direction (to the future) of time?☜FFB597
⌃
The thermodynamic arrow
The thermodynamic arrow☜The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies an arrow of time in the sense that the entropy (or disorder) of an isolated system such as the whole universe never decreases - it either increases or remains constant.☜59C6EF
⌃
Why do we see an entropy gradient?
Why do we see an entropy gradient?☜We find ourselves in an observable universe in which entropy increases consistently in one direction, thereby showing time asymmetry - an arrow of time. Yet the vast majority of underlying dynamical processes are time-symmetric. How to account for this? Two broad approaches are considered here.☜FFB597
⌃
Asymmetric boundary condition
Asymmetric boundary condition☜We see entropy increasing because: 1. An isolated system in a less than maximal entropy state will spontaneously evolve toward higher entropy. 2. We inhabit a universe (or part thereof) at less than maximal entropy. Both must be true for the explanation to work.☜59C6EF
⌃
Past hypothesis
Past hypothesis☜We inhabit a universe - or part thereof - characterized by a low-entropy past that has enabled the evolution of intelligent observers to occur. This together with Boltzmanns probabilistic argument (see sibling node) implies entropy will increase over time toward thermal equilibrium.☜9FDEF6
⌃
Why low entropy in the past?
Why low entropy in the past?☜How do we account for the low entropy of the early universe reflected in the extreme - but not perfect - homogeneity of the distribution of matter and energy shortly after the Big Bang? When gravity is prominent - as in the early universe - a smooth distribution is unstable and of low entropy.☜FFB597
⌃
Anthropic selection
Anthropic selection☜Several explanations have been offered that rely on (weak) anthropic selection to explain the low entropy past. They all note that conscious observers can only exist in an environment far from thermodynamic equilibrium, but differ on how the we came to be in such a state.☜59C6EF
⌃
Ontological cost
Ontological cost☜Huw Price notes that anthropic reasoning that appeals to some form of multiverse cosmology requires us to posit that much more exists than we are ordinarily aware of - that it has a huge ontological cost - and that we should therefore look for less costly explanations.☜EF597B
■
Simplicity matters, not ontology
Simplicity matters, not ontology☜Occams Razor is fundamentally about conceptual simplicity rather than ontological size.☜EF597B
□
Apriori size presumption
Apriori size presumption☜To invoke ontological cost against the multiverse seems to make an apriori assumption about the most probable size of the universe. Why would we presume only one spacetime bubble? Would it be rational for an inhabitant of Platos cave to presume reality was confined to what was inside the cave?☜EF597B
□
Graph of this discussion
Graph of this discussion☜Click this to see the whole debate, excluding comments, in graphical form☜dcdcdc
Enter the title of your article
Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Enter the main body of your article
Prefer more work space? Try the
big editor
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
July 2024
>
<<
July 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
27
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
28
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
29
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
31
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
32
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
1
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
Peter Baldwin
NodeID:
#115265
Node type:
OpposingArgument
Entry date (GMT):
8/12/2011 5:02:00 AM
Last edit date (GMT):
8/12/2011 5:02:00 AM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
1
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
Enter comment
Select article text to quote
Cancel
Enter
welcome text
First name
Last name
Email
Skip
Join
x
Select file to upload