Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Your third paragraph isn't logical. It's treating Occam's razor as if it were a physical law rather than a scheme for trying to guess the correct answer when you don't have enough information to determine it using a scientific approach. Even when used properly, Occam's razor doesn't guarantee anything about the accuracy of conclusions based on it.
But you're not just treating it as if it were a physical law but also extending it to the extreme and going from "when multiple explanations are equally plausible, prefer the one that depends on the fewest assumptions" to "any scenario can only arise from the simplest system that could cause that scenario to arise".
You exactly spot it. "any scenario can only arise from the simplest system that could cause that scenario to arise". Nature is lazy and don't like spending resources for nothing.
Again, it is my opinion, and I posted it here to challenge it.
If you have examples or argument against it, where scenarios did occured in over complex system, i'm interested 🙂.
Nature takes non-optimal "non-lazy" approaches all the time.
For example, the wiring of the eye in vertebrates is "backwards", with the optic nerve passing in front of the retina, blocking light and creating a blind spot. It takes more resources and more energy to do it backwards than it would to wire it up "correctly".
Complex natural systems often get stuck in local minima that prevent them from reaching true optional states. Take the fact that we haven't experienced vacuume collapse yet as another example.
I think your argument is also an argument against destruction of complexity back to simplicity.
It's also using circular logic. You're assuming the universe only has the complexity to give rise to one form of life and therefore the universe must be simple enough to have only given rise to one form of life.