Hi Brian, thanks for the reply. I wanted to start a new topic on this subject so as not to diverge too much from the scope of the original thread. Unfortunately, I cannot create a new post. My apologies to the OP for hijacking his thread.
Too often you find someone employing Ocaam's Razor as if it is a measuring tool for scientific truth or validity. Simplicity does not imply validity and it is not a fundamental litmus test for scientific truth. The litmus test for scientific truth is empirical observation. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a a duck; even if the equations infer it must be a cow.
Someone can come out of the woodwork and put forth the18'th century hypothesis that' the Sun is simply a burning lump of coal and attempt to justify the theory by asserting that the Coal theory is certainly much more simple and elegant than the explanation provided by nuclear physics. Right out of the gate, however, the lack of dominance of carbon emission lines throws a monkey- wrench into this theory. The empirical observations of the emission lines force a much higher level of complexity on any theory that attempts to to explain this observation.
Also, I think it is important to separate methodological simplicity from causal simplicity when discussing concepts like Ocaam's Razor. A scientist does not start with the goal of constructing a theory which is simple and elegant. A scientist sets out to construct, in the most general and fundamental terms possible, an explanation for the phenomenon under scrutiny. This explanation and the associated methodology may or may not be more simple than any arbitrary theory which precede it or competes with it. If anyone doubts this, simply read a paper on the theory of vortex flow or non-linear dynamics.
In terms of methodology, relative simplicity results because we choose a frame of reference that often, but not always, makes it possible to intuitively conceptualize the problem under study. As a very simple example, I can choose to utilize polar coordinates to calculate the trajectory of an object undergoing rectilinear motion even though it is much easier and more intuitive to utilize Cartesian 3-space or some arbitrarily simply Vector space. Both reference frames will produce the same results and allow me to predict and explain. To me, that is the gist of Ocaam's Razor -- there is no need to trouble yourself with unneeded complexity when a simpler explanation will do. Ocaam's Razor does not imply that something is very wrong when a theory is not relatively simple, elegant, and beautiful.
I also believe that it is important to separate heuristic simplicity from causal simplicity when discussing a subject such as Ocaam's Razor. We generalize concepts to make them more subtle and compact. This flows out of our operational requirements. We formulate more fundamental generalizations to eliminate higher levels of relative complexity in our understanding of phenomenon. In terms of causal simplicity, a more fundamental theory is naturally going to be much more simple and elegant than those that precede it because it provides a more fundamental and generalized way of viewing the phenomenon.
....
As far as interpretations of QM, interpretations are only worthwhile for a scientist if they lead to a framework that allows the scientist to create novel and testable predictions that the current theory cannot. Otherwise, different camps would simply be doing the same things using different metaphysical labels. When a novel conceptual understanding of fundamental ontology leads to a new theory that can explain and predict where others cannot, the result is a paradigm shift that revolutionize how one thinks about nature.
IMO, Physics has been in a metaphysical funk for quite some time -- since the 20's, actually -- and it is a community that is not really sure of itself or where it wants to go. If any period in the history of Physics as in need of a paradigm shift, this is it. As I stated in an earlier post, we are not in Kansas anymore and pretending that we are is likely only going to result in more time spent in this funk.
Modern Theoretical Physics has become String Theory vs the Standard Model vs Loop Gravity vs [insert theory here]. Very few have stopped to consider that perhaps everyone is digging for oil in the wrong place. Perhaps the community needs to find a totally different conceptual landscape in which to probe for oil. Unfortunately, budgets and manpower are all tied up and little of anything is left for any undertaking which challenges the status quo or heads in a novel direction. Physics is no longer 19'th century Natural Philosophy where scientists work largely autonomously and can head out into new ventures on their own. The current politics, sociology, and budgetary considerations of 21'st the century scientific enterprise preclude the possibility of a paradigm shift happening any time soon.
IMO, a Reductionist blind-spot exists in our attempt to understand nature and formally relate lower levels of complexity to higher levels, and vice-versa. One thing that is apparent from our current understanding of nature is that there often exists no clear and systematic causal delineation between different levels of structure in the physical world. I would liken this to the notion of the 'so-called' missing links in evolution that don't permit one to empirically map one level of organizational structure to the next. For example, our distinction between atomic and molecular structures is methodological and heuristic--nobody has managed to come up with a complete and internally consistent physical model that applies, across the board, as to how molecular structure arises from atomic structure.
We can explain the structure of the water molecule by appealing to the concepts of energy levels,stability, valence, polarity, and all these other useful concepts employed in chemistry;however, we would be hard-pressed to deductively predict the existence of the water molecule and it's properties based only on the the laws governing physical structure at the atomic level. In chemistry, scientists still have trouble explaining certain unique molecular properties such as chirality. In fact, scientists are still debating the number of bonds each water molecule makes with its neighbors. In our study of nature, a reductive blind spot always seems to exist when we go from one level of structure to another.
In short, knowing and understanding the properties of lower level structures does not always allow us to predict or account the properties of higher level structures based only on the properties of those that exist at a lower level -- in any formal and systematic way. There will always be gaps, special cases and oddities along with the blind-spots in our reductive schemes. To abstract even further, would an assumed TOE which accounts for the lowest level structures be able, in theory or practice, to explain the migratory patterns of humpback whales or explain the existence and content of Shakespeare's plays? I am withholding my opinion as to whether or not I believe emergence is due to ontological or methodological concerns.
Historically, physicists have been working with the metaphysical presupposition that discreet and autonomous bits of substance represent the most fundamental property that can be attributed to natural phenomenon. The autonomous parts that comprise themselves are all that is needed to account for complexity -- at least that's the current paradigm.
This ontological and methodological framework is what I question.
