13-03-2016, 06:16 PM
Quote:Say you and a friend are sitting at the side of the road late one morning listening to approaching hoof beats. He's visiting from Montana but you've lived in the area all your life; Austin, TX. He says the hoof beats are horses, you tell him it's 5 zebra and 2 camels. His assumption of horses is the best explanation requiring the fewest assumption since his assumption is that, as it is in Montana, horses are more common in Texas than zebra or camels. He's right about his assumptions, but wrong about the horses. When a man and his wife pass by riding camels and herding five zebra, you explain that them more relevant assumption was that your neighbors were taking their herd out for a run like they do every day at noon. If you're going to shave with Oscar's razor you're going to nick yourself sometimes. But if you don't know how to use it you're just as likely to cut your throat.
This example is apparently not correct since the second researcher has additional apriori knowledge, so they two are inequal in respect to the basis for their assumptions. Ockham's razor would apply, say, if a guy, while possessing this apriori knowledge about zebras and camels, would make an assumption instead that the Devil is approaching.
Quote:As for why I'm willing to consider cell division let's unpack a bit. An understanding of the process of cell divsion or some of its outputs doesn't require an understanding of cells, or even that you have the concept. It requires that you are aware of and attempt to explain things like growth and healing - and I'm not going new age on you - that's just what cell division is. I'm not critiquing the methodology behind this approach because I haven't taken the time yet to review all the background material. If I do decide the approach seems untenable it will likely not be because of a word choice in translating a concept. I addressed your objection to cells not because I really believe this approach will work, but because it's more interesting than another substitution cipher. I didn't find your objection to cells to be decisive; honestly it seemed like nit-picking. Push over the apple cart if the apples are all rotten. But if you see a single apple that might be bad, look closer. The apple might be fine, the apple might be wormy but not inherently bad, or the apples might all be bad.
I think you believe you have the guy backed into a corner and are kicking his legs out from under him. My perception is that he's a kid rolling his hoop down the road. You've thrown a rock at his hoop but it's not going to hit so he doesn't even bother to bat it away. He might hit a rock in the road, hit the hoop too hard with his stick or get run over by a truck and end up with a broken hoop. It might fall over and he won't be able to get it rolling again. He might even get it to the end of the road. But as long as the hoop isn't obviously busted and he's not trying to drag it down the road rather than roll it, let the kid play.
By no means I want to prevent anybody from developing any theory or direction of research, unless I am funding those as a taxpayer or an investor (which is not the case with the VMS). But at the same time I am (as anyone is) free to introduce critique of the proposals bein thrown in. If I see something unlikely, as the cell division, I just point that out. If I see something unsubstantiated, as why "89" is сell division, and not chromosome division, I also point that out. Until I hear any substantiation beside the simple "this is not impossible", I'm sorry I cannot take those assumption seriously.
There are infinite number of possibilities in Nature. No life of no men is sufficient to investigate all of them. Nothing is impossible, except when ruled out by formal logic (like it is impossible that two incompatible events both occur). Is it possible that the Sun will not rise tomorrow? Yes, it is. Is it probable, then? Well, it is not. So investigating unlikely possibilities is not my methodology. Other people are welcome to do as they wish (unless they are my government or my payees).
Only gives a zero result.