Is God changing?

[_moksha]

If God is as expansive as the Universe, then the change can be viewed as a constant based on the rate of expansion. If not, we could measure God on the scale of death and taxes. If not subject to the constants of death and taxes, then God must also be changing on this scale as well.

How do you define God, Moksha?
I see God as (ultimate) GOoD - good in the big picture.
I see God as a phenomena both inside and outside of me.

God is the best thing I can imagine. If the Kingdom of God is within, then it bodes well for all of us. Externally, God will keep our ship from hitting a celestial iceberg but may not be there for such incidentals as stray comets, asteroids and nearby supernovas.

[_subgenius]

I believe you are using this term incorrectly, parsimony is neither an arbiter nor is it used as an affirmation of an ad hoc hypothesis.

I didn't say it was. Reread what I said.

ok, re-read....hmmm...yep, you are still using the word "favors" (hint: arbiter is one who settles a dispute)

However, it would seem that if one was to consider "the simpler" theory to be true - then God is certainly less complex than whatever system of chemical switches, environmental influences, and cellular gymnastics that you might propose in contra.

Not if you consider all the ramifications of such a theory. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The simple idea would be it was God vs all in your head. As I pointed out, parsimony would favor it being all in your head.

Still using the term incorrectly...your example here is where you use it as an arbiter in the "vs". Parsimony would be more appropriately applied when trying to develop either theory not when trying to compare theories and concluding that the simpler theory must be true, simply because of "simpler". Parsimony applies to methodology not construction....that would be validation by economy not by parsimony. Your premise that "simpler" equals "more likely" is being misapplied on these circumstances.

[_Tobin]

ok, re-read....hmmm...yep, you are still using the word "favors" (hint: arbiter is one who settles a dispute)

Parsimony can't an arbiter. It's not a person.

Still using the term incorrectly...your example here is where you use it as an arbiter in the "vs". Parsimony would be more appropriately applied when trying to develop either theory not when trying to compare theories and concluding that the simpler theory must be true, simply because of "simpler". Parsimony applies to methodology not construction....that would be validation by economy not by parsimony. Your premise that "simpler" equals "more likely" is being misapplied on these circumstances.

Again, parsimony can't be an arbiter. It's not a person. And you are right, it is methodology we use to evaluate and develop a theory. In general the simpler ideas are viewed as superior. For example, I could propose that gravity is invisible elastic bands. However, the ramifications of that idea quickly becomes complicated and in the end doesn't lead to a better understanding on the phenomena. The same is true here. How do thoughts arise? Are they due to our brain or something external like a God? Since introducing the concept of a God external to our brain introduces complexity, parsimony would tend to favor the simpler idea that thoughts come entirely from our brain alone.

[_subgenius]

ok, re-read....hmmm...yep, you are still using the word "favors" (hint: arbiter is one who settles a dispute)

Parsimony can't an arbiter. It's not a person.

yea, that is what i said...but you insist that it behaves as one.

Still using the term incorrectly...your example here is where you use it as an arbiter in the "vs". Parsimony would be more appropriately applied when trying to develop either theory not when trying to compare theories and concluding that the simpler theory must be true, simply because of "simpler". Parsimony applies to methodology not construction....that would be validation by economy not by parsimony. Your premise that "simpler" equals "more likely" is being misapplied on these circumstances.

Again, parsimony can't be an arbiter. It's not a person. And you are right, it is methodology we use to evaluate and develop a theory. In general the simpler ideas are viewed as superior. For example, I could propose that gravity is invisible elastic bands. However, the ramifications of that idea quickly becomes complicated and in the end doesn't lead to a better understanding on the phenomena. The same is true here. How do thoughts arise? Are they due to our brain or something external like a God? Since introducing the concept of a God external to our brain introduces complexity, parsimony would tend to favor the simpler idea that thoughts come entirely from our brain alone.

I believe you are still misusing the concept as illustrated by your examples.
Parsimony would be how you go about composing, developing and/or experimenting about your elastic-band theory...not how you decide which theory to use. The notion that simpler ideas are superior is unfounded by logic, reason, or real life. A complex idea is just as likely to be valid as a simpler idea even when they are about the same subject. Its not the simplicity of idea but rather it is the simplicity of method.
So, given your example - you are still "competing" which ultimately requires arbitration - because you, erroneously, determine the validity of something solely by how simple it is to determine. In other words, your invisible elastic band theory is not validated or invalidated by parsimony - but rather they are validated by the methods you use to test that theory - and those methods are best served by parsimony.

Now, given your question about "how do thoughts arise" - first, that is not a theory but a question. So, you actually follow with 2 theories (1) Thoughts arise because of God and (2) Thoughts arise from Brain. Parsimony is not how you determine which theory is "more correct"...(basically assuming that since theory (X) is easier to investigate it must be true). Parsimony would be exclusive only to the methods you choose to test each theory - and it may very well be that one theory is "tested" to be true even though its method may be more "complicated" in comparison.

Rube Goldberg cartoons showed how fanciful and complicated tasks could be completed. So while Rube's method of "waking up" was more complicated it still achieved the same "waking up" as a simple alarm clock.
So, the theory would be "Alarms wake people up". By which case we would test that theory either with a Rube Goldeberg machine that triggers the alarm or just a simple alarm clock. Parsimony would say to use the simple alarm clock because it is tests the theory in the simplest, most economical, and most efficient manner. (see the parsimony of the alarm clock method does not invalidate the Rube method because Rube would have proved the theory as well).

[_Tobin]

I believe you are still misusing the concept as illustrated by your examples.

Not at all.

Parsimony would be how you go about composing, developing and/or experimenting about your elastic-band theory...not how you decide which theory to use. The notion that simpler ideas are superior is unfounded by logic, reason, or real life. A complex idea is just as likely to be valid as a simpler idea even when they are about the same subject. Its not the simplicity of idea but rather it is the simplicity of method.

Not really. A complex idea devolves into one or more simpler explanations, assumptions and criteria. What you are trying to achieve when you maximize parsimony is evaluate the merits of a theory based on how optimal the explanation is. You do that by trying to minimize the number of underlying explanations, assumptions and criteria. This approach is very similar to Occam's razor.

So, given your example - you are still "competing" which ultimately requires arbitration - because you, erroneously, determine the validity of something solely by how simple it is to determine. In other words, your invisible elastic band theory is not validated or invalidated by parsimony - but rather they are validated by the methods you use to test that theory - and those methods are best served by parsimony.

That is incorrect. As I pointed out before, the reason my invisible elastic band theory isn't superior is because it isn't an optimal explanation. The number of subsequent explanations, assumptions and criteria needed to explain the phenomena of gravity increases (becomes more complex) as you consider different scenarios.

Now, given your question about "how do thoughts arise" - first, that is not a theory but a question. So, you actually follow with 2 theories (1) Thoughts arise because of God and (2) Thoughts arise from Brain. Parsimony is not how you determine which theory is "more correct"...(basically assuming that since theory (X) is easier to investigate it must be true). Parsimony would be exclusive only to the methods you choose to test each theory - and it may very well be that one theory is "tested" to be true even though its method may be more "complicated" in comparison.

Again, that is erroneous. The definition of parsimony is the economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor. Parsimony is not relegated as you claim to exclusively test each theory, but can also be used to help determine which theory is better based on how optimal (the economy of) the explanation is.

[_subgenius]

...be used to help determine which theory is better based on how optimal (the economy of) the explanation is.

See, here you go falling back on Parsimonious as "arbiter"

It is flat wrong to believe that parsimony, or even the razor, means that the simplest of 2 or more opposing explanations is the "best" or correct merely because it is the "simplest".

When one is trying to get from a to b -
Parsimony is more akin to drawing a straight line between point a and point b rather than a squiggly, curvy line from point a to point b.

[_Tobin]

See, here you go falling back on Parsimonious as "arbiter"

It is flat wrong to believe that parsimony, or even the razor, means that the simplest of 2 or more opposing explanations is the "best" or correct merely because it is the "simplest".

When one is trying to get from a to b -
Parsimony is more akin to drawing a straight line between point a and point b rather than a squiggly, curvy line from point a to point b.

Not at all. I'm simply stating that parsimony is a tool we can use to determine which hypothesis is better. The arbiter isn't parsimony. The arbiter is us using parsimony to determine which is better.

And do you dispute that 'Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'? The reason that Occam's Razor is called the 'law of parsimony' is because parsimony (i.e. the economy of the explanation) is used as the criteria to judge between competing hypotheses.

[_subgenius]

Not at all. I'm simply stating that parsimony is a tool we can use to determine which hypothesis is better. The arbiter isn't parsimony. The arbiter is us using parsimony to determine which is better.

But the scientific and rest of the world does not agree with you...parsimony is not a tool that "decides a competition"...it is not the tool, means, or measure by which a "value" or a "truth" can be determined. It is merely a means of evaluating a "method"....like "going around your elbow to get to your thumb"

And do you dispute that 'Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'? The reason that Occam's Razor is called the 'law of parsimony' is because parsimony (i.e. the economy of the explanation) is used as the criteria to judge between competing hypotheses.

Yes, i do dispute what you are saying about parsimony. Because it does not speak to "correctness".... and the razor does not compare quantities, it simply states that you should not make "unnecessary" assumptions.

[_Amore]

But consider how you experience anything - all within you. You experience God within you.
To me, there are different ways of seeing God - objective truth and subjective truth.
Objective truth is worth striving for with the humble realization that we'll always fool ourselves with our subjectively limited views.
Subjective truth is also worth striving for with the humble realization that it's all in our heads/hearts - all subjective!
We feel - so we have TRUE physiological consequences of such feelings - but often feelings are illogical interpretations.
They say the greatest paradox is that feelings cannot be trusted, yet it is emotion that tells us the greatest truths.
If I'm scared of snakes - I am! It's a subjective truth that I need to acknowledge - and either accept, overcome or otherwise deal with it. If I ignore such truth, I'll tie myself into knots with lies and denial. But if I blindly accept my feelings, I may do stupid things out of fear etc., ignoring any relevant facts.

What do you think by, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

There is probably no way to determine whether your feelings come from the bio-electrical impulses in your brain or are part of your God in your opinion. Parsimony would favor that it is all in your head.

Yes - it is all in my head - in your head - in each of our heads!
Where else would it be though?
Where else would we experience anything - except within us?
"The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you."

Psych-ology ("study of the soul") is important because through understanding our own thought processes and behavior, we can take control of our lives more - what we focus on and how we're motivated and find peace.
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Placebo effect is real.
Believing in that which is GOoD, increases GOoD and makes life better.

[_Tobin]

But the scientific and rest of the world does not agree with you...parsimony is not a tool that "decides a competition"...it is not the tool, means, or measure by which a "value" or a "truth" can be determined. It is merely a means of evaluating a "method"....like "going around your elbow to get to your thumb"

Actually, as I see in your answer below, you dispute the implications of Occam's Razor and using parsimony as a means to judge among hypotheses which is best. as far as I know in general the scientific community does not reject Occam's Razor as you do, so I don't think you are speaking with any authority on the matter.

Yes, i do dispute what you are saying about parsimony. Because it does not speak to "correctness".... and the razor does not compare quantities, it simply states that you should not make "unnecessary" assumptions.

It would seem you reject Occam's Razor since we use it to compare theories. That is also why you have such a bizarre opinion about the uses of parsimony. Since we aren't dealing with facts, but only your opinion, I don't have a problem just simply dismissing your views.