#occam's razor

[manticore239]

Love is reason. It is the reason for my being, the philosophical underpinning.

Love is tangible. Nothing is experienced more intimately or directly.

Love matters. Without it all meaning fades to smoke, and "reason" itself becomes a paradox.

But love demands presence, and presence threatens control. And control is an illusion. So presence has been challenged to spare control. And something real responded to the challenge, not with intention, but as if reality might exist as fundamental, and that certain things will inevitably take notice when its slumber is trespassed upon, an awareness that does not conflate the human law with natural law. Physics has marked cause and effect.

Imagine someone pleading with their very own reflection to behave a certain way. Now expand that definition of a mirror, and let's wonder why one demands anything of their reflection which they would not do themselves. It is absurd. We are all mirrors to each other, and we can offer nothing beyond ourselves except within the context of presence. Fear invites contemplation, not retreat. But cowards hide. Light reveals. Darkness envelops. And from that standpoint, the reason to anything has always been the same.

The reason is you--infinitely, unconditionally, indiscriminately. Or is that not love?

Why would anyone try to disprove love, or its source? Where's the reason in that? All I smell is fear, and its denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial, and the denial of denial. And behind that final denial was something familiar: truth.

I invoke Occam's Razor on the status quo, the "right path" versus a simpler assumption, the intuitive alternative. Living does not require a degree. My dog is living. My dog has no degrees, and mine's extra. Living requires love. And if they do not love me, then I cannot love them, for they are not with me in the present. They are the thing I question existing. To exist is to be. To be is to be present. Presence is connection. Connection is love. Love does not need proven. It simply is. The flavor of that truth is so sweet, it is like tasting freedom, its juice escaping from your tear ducts.

You think of the people who will choose the comfort of consuming the apple over the truth of experiencing its bitter taste. A hollow experience that, if the tables were flipped, would be too far-fetched to entertain as even a dystopian horror, too outlandish and inhuman for its weight to be transmitted by history books or hieroglyphics. The dog knows how to stay connected with the earth by connecting to the moon in a moment of deep introspective presence. The dog does not write it down, and still the dog's instincts sniff out the present. That is how Earth remembers, not in fairy tales of scientific theories that are so fragile they must be proven, over and over, but in something much more profound if we just allow for hypothetical contemplation of something better.

A reality already there, waiting to be acknowledged all this time. And if I proved anything, then it was unplanned. I do not make plans. They always fall apart. It never goes how I imagine. This is called "mystery," and it is fun, best enjoyed together with loved ones to share in the wonder of being. Not doing. Not proving. Not earning or learning. Not even growing. Just being. Everything else is dessert.

Sigh

Sitting next to a deity and resting my face on their thigh as they pet my hair, feeling my wings twitch absentmindedly.

What if I decide to love you without a reason? What if I love you for the fact you are my deity and nothing else? What if I offer you enternal devotion for your most wonderful attention?

(Op is a minor)

[falcemartello]

E pensare che la risposta giusta a quasi tutto è: “non me ne frega un cazzo”.

[vaspider]

Okay I know I said I was going to sleep but y'all.

Are people seriously saying that a company that can't properly bolt on a door or an emergency slide has perfect opsec on a contract killing plan to off a dude by giving him MRSA, pneumonia, and a stroke?

Is that really the argument people are making?

Really?

[quinloki]

Outside the box

Source

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

David Rowe

* * * *

Do not allow pundits to “normalize” the election result.

Just as the media normalized Trump before the election, there is a wholesale effort to “normalize” the election results. Pundits are claiming the election was decided by voters’ concerns over inflation, immigration, or crime. Those issues are post-facto rationalizations offered by voters to conceal their real reasons for voting for a convicted felon and adjudicated sexual abuser over an eminently qualified candidate.

Kamala Harris lost because Trump's supporters were motivated by racism, misogyny, and white supremacy. They voted for a felon and against prosecutor/senator/vice president because she is a woman of Black and South Asian ancestry. All of the remaining explanations are camouflage to conceal the real motivations of those who voted against Kamala Harris.

We will learn nothing if we accept pollsters’ dog-and-pony show to explain the election with exit polls and crosstabs in spreadsheets that have nothing to do with the real motivations of voters. Do not conflate data with information. Do not mistake information for knowledge. Do not confuse knowledge and understanding. Do not accept percentages and cohorts in response to the simple but profound question, “Why?”

Racism. Misogyny. White supremacy. Occam’s Razor.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[funnyscienceman]

good song btw

[tournamentstuck]

On review, this tournament seems a bit convoluted. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

!! Freshest Artifact To Get Into Hands With Intent Of Harm !!

This is the masterpost for the tournament! I will be linking each individual poll underneath as the tournament goes on.

Propaganda is welcomed and encouraged! I will reblog any and all that comes my way.

Due to the size and diversity of weapons in Homestuck I have divided the tournament into pools. This is so we dont have two swords or two hammers or two assault rifles for the finals so on so forth. To keep track of pools with more than one round of brackets, these pool-brackets will now be called Acts. If a Pool doesn't have more than one Act it will not be refereed to with one.

--Round One Pool One Act OneCutlass of Zillywair VS Occam's Razor

Bec Noir's Body Sword Thing VS Human Pornography Sword

Caledfwlch VS Snoop Dogg Snow Cone Machete

Shitty Ninja Sword VS Unbreakable Katana

sord VS Bait and Switchblade

Scarlet Ribbitar VS Regisword

Royal Deringer VS Ancestral Awakening Sword

Saber Rattle VS Caledscratch

--Round One Pool Two Act One

MSPA Standard Issue Pistol VS Doc Scratch's Magnum

Calliope's Magnum VS Flintlock Pistols

Flintlocks of Zillyhau VS Golden Pistols

Fin's Fiveshooter VS Twin M9 Berettas

--Round One Pool Three

Jade's Newspaper VS Diamond Droog's Newspaper

--Round One Pool Four

Suitarangs VS Sollux's Throwing Stars

--Round One Pool Five Act One

Quills Of Echidna VS Thorns of Oglogoth

Thistles Of Zillywich VS Needlewands

Cue Needles VS Knitting Needles

--Round One Pool Six

Equius's Fists VS Roxy's Fists

--Round One Pool Seven Act One

Ψdon's Entente VS HIC's Double Trident

Meenah's Double Trident VS Brainfork

--Round One Pool Eight

Clubs Deuce VS Table Leg

--Round One Pool Nine

White Wand VS Empiricist's Wand

--Round One Pool Ten Act One

Broken Caledscratch VS Broken Royal Deringer

Broken Scarlet Ribbitar VS Broken Caledfwich

--Round One Pool Eleven Act One

Sledgehammer VS Warhammer Of Zillyhoo

Pogo Hammer VS Wrinklefucker

Pop-A-Matic Vrillyhoo Hammer VS Claw Hammer

Fear No Anvil VS Telescopic Sassacrusher

--Round One Pool Twelve Act One

Battlespork of Zillywut VS Skaia War Fork

Junior Battermaster's Bowlbuster Poking Solution 50000 VS Red Skaia War Fork

--Round One Pool Thirteen

Kanaya's Chainsaw VS Demonbane Ragripper

--Round One Pool Fourteen Act One

Fiduspear VS Jousting Lance

Cigarette Holder VS Daggerlance

--Round One Pool Fifteen Act One

Registickle VS Homes Smell Ya Later

Sickle VS Clawsickle

--Round One Pool Sixteen Act One

Green Sun Scepter VS Walking Can

Dragon Cane VS Gold Scepter

Black Scepter VS Spear Cane

Cast Iron Horse Hitcher VS Bull Penis Cane

--Round One Pool Seventeen

Con Air Bunny VS Liv Tyler

--Round One Pool Eighteen

Claw Gloves VS Action Claws

--Round One Pool Nineteen Act One

Ahab's Crosshairs VS Girl's Best Friend

Black Rifle VS Green Sun Streetsweeper

Harpoon Gun VS Proton Canon

Laser Gun VS Hunting Rifle

LE's AR VS Crockercorp Appearifier Rifle

Gold Rifle VS Blunderbuss of Zillywigh

Mom's Rifle VS Blunderbuss

DD's AK VS DD's AR

Previous Rounds Below The Break!

there arent any yet lol

[jellybeanium124]

you know if we're living in a simulation there's probably millions of signs but all of that is just normal to us because we've only ever lived in the simulation.

[eucanthos]

eucanthos

Peter Downsbrough graph paper, 1972

Zanocco Customed industrial solutions [eyebrow]

Eye On the anatomy of vertebrates Richard Owen 1866

Larsen Sotelo One Eye 2022

1920's green Tin Toy telephone

Yayoi Kusama to Georgia O'Keeffe 1963 paper cut

[regurgitated older collage Jan 30, 2024 post]

OCCAM’S RAZOR The principle of simplicity or parsimony:

"if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one"

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/

PDF: https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-jacob-feldman/papers/feldman_simplicity_2016.pdf

[dappersappho]

“I think the takeaway from this is that Democrats ran a bad campaign.”

Wasn’t Biden’s whole thing the fact that “at least I’m not Trump”? And he still got like 80 million people to come out for him?

[detective-jane-rizzoli]

[falcemartello]

Buongiorno,

fa un freddo cane, ma per non inquinare la Terra non possiamo accendere il riscaldamento.

Immagina ritenere normale dover aspettare l’autorizzazione del sindaco per accendere il riscaldamento. LOL

[humornthoughts]

(Transcript for those of you with screen readers bcuz I couldn’t figure out how to attach it to the image itself on mobile for some reason)

Person 1:

Chekov's Cat: if you see a cat in the first act, it will probably be relevant later. (example: Alien)

Shrodinger's razor: an unopened box may or may not contain the solution to the story; there's no way to know without opening it. (example: Monk)

Occam's gun: the simplest way to kill off a character is to shoot them. (example: Bambi)

Person 2:

Chekov's Box: If there is a container introduced in the opening act, it will be opened later.

Schrodinger's Gun: Treat every gun as if It's loaded unless you've checked it yourself.

Occar's Cat: If you hear strange noises at night, it's probably a cat.

Person 3:

Chekhov's gun: a narrative principle that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed.

Occam's razor: if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.

Shrodingers cat- a cat in a box with poison that has a 50% chance of breaking, we will not know if the cat is dead or alive until opening the box leaving the cat in a perpetual state of uncertainty

[phantomstag]

panzerfaust — occam's razor

each age must pay a price for indifference

you needn‘t look any further

the universe is wrought with their works

[tournamentstuck]

Masterpost

[stevejones313]

Occam’s Razor

Random point, but just a reminder that Occam’s Razor is not “the simplest explanation is often the right one.”

Occam’s Razor is that one should start looking for solutions that require the least number of elements. Another way of saying it would be when looking for solutions, START with the least number of assumptions THAT MAKE SENSE.

Say you walk into your home and your sofa is missing. The first solution that requires the least number of elements is A PERSON stole your sofa. But does that make sense? Can ONE person have broken into your home and moved the sofa on their own? Sure it’s the ‘simplest’ solution, but it doesn’t make the most sense. Occam’s Razor would ask “what are the smallest number of assumptions required - THAT ALSO FIT THE FACTS - that explains this situation and MAKES SENSE?”

That could lead you to, very reasonably, say that at least TWO people stole your sofa. You started with the least number of elements (e.g. one culprit) and stopped at an explanation that had the least number of necessary elements that made sense (e.g. at least two culprits). That’s Occam’s Razor.