The simplest explanation doesn't ask for more. But the very nature of life is to ask for more. As a metaphysics it would be hopelessly backward; unable to confront new circumstances. A simple explanation involves a decision to cease looking for new information, essentially, to cease existing, or living in the pursuit of ultimate meaning.
It is close minded to think that every simple solution is a simple explanation. In reality solutions are experiential, not conceptual, at least in the sense that reason is an experience, and cannot be reduced to a particular set of words, or even a mathematical equation.
To fail in acknowledging the complexity, or potential complexity, of human thought, by considering only a literal or reductionist view, is tantamount to conceding to death, and ultimately has value only as a placeholder until a more authentic system of meaning and correspondence can be developed.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT:
Maybe I misunderstand, but according to Occam, the simplest explanation might be that "things don't relate to one another". If we follow the strictest logic, with no assumptions, then we should certainly come to the conclusion that we should believe in nothing, and that nothing is true (and that these statements are themselves not statements of truth).
In fact, any number of clearly idiotic statements is a simpler explanation than a scientific view. So what I mean to say is that although an explanation suitable to Occam�s Razor may be relatively simpler in its argumentation, it succeeds by being relatively more complex�that is, relational. A more relational theory should not be dismissed simply because it adopts more sophisticated argumentation. Instead, we could look to see if it provides any terse maxims to follow, which seem true in and of themselves. Then we can look for correspondences between maxims. In this way there is no need to make assumptions; we just have to keep in mind that the value of the statements is its pragmatic value, and its capacity to create meaning.
What seems obvious to me is that complexity isn't the issue; minds are concerned with relationships, and so an argument's cogency should be founded on its capacity to provide a solid relational framework.
The need for a simple explanation comes out of an unreasonably simple conception of perceptual capacity. Part of the value of a perspective is its relationship to other perspectives. It is best if a given thinker produces several interrelated perspectives, which are necessarily more complex than a single one, but which lead to a more accurate balance of opposing possibilities.
That all assumptions introduce possibilities for error. Scientifically everyone can agree to the utility of the Razor. Yet at the same time the more information someone is given, the more likely they will distinguish a component that is useful... So from the standpoint of a thinker, the only utility of Occam�s razor is to ensure depth of content in a range of materials considered.
The key is to be simple in the conceptual system, but not simple in the variety of standpoints that it accomodates. The simplicity is really structural, and not experiential; in other words, a terse theory is not de facto less complex, but only gives that impression by being expressed in simple terms...
Complexity is the matter of thought; to dismiss it is to dismiss the value of thinking.
Essays Return to Main
The preceding, as well as all other parts of Nathan's Philosophy and Writing are pending copyright
(c) 2006, Nathan Coppedge
Main Page
Essays Main
* Conc. & Abs.
* Iterative Philos.
* Unity Intro
* Imperfection
* Occam Dispute
* Nominal Mech.
* Res. Paradox
* Metamorphosis
* Essent. Principa
* Meta-Extension
* Meta Precis
* Meta Wrinkles
* Relevantism
* Relative Dispute
* Symbolism
* Wisdom Walks
* Pragma Temp.
* World consists
* Program. Antith
* Body Real Estate
* Four Corners
* Schizo def
* Moral 2d
* Eating Acrobats
* Fork Analogy
* Sloppy Thinking
Book of Indra
Unity Philosophy
Trans Ethics
On Systems
About Writing
Quotes & Slants
Intellectualia