Sorry, my analogy was obviously unclear. There were flaws in the system but they failed to recognise them because they had so much invested in the system being unflawed. The triple A credit rating is Bayes.
The triple-A credit rating is not a theorem. Your analogy only holds if you are asserting that math
Know what subset of people are better drivers than average? 80% of drivers. And if they came up with a test for how good a driver is, I imagine they'd ace it.
No, that's the subset of drivers who think themselves
better than average. Does it hold up when you compare their driving to others' across a sufficiently wide sample?
Nah, this doesn't work. Issue is, I don't need to emulate the universe. It matters not whether some planet observing some star in some galaxy outside the range of our current telescopes has life on it. I'll decide that when it matters. I don't even need to have thought up the shape of the galaxy yet (though, obviously, I am leaning towards a light years across bust of me). I don't need to emulate the universe, just those bits of it we can observe. And, until science is finished, that will always be, by definition, less complex than the universe. MML satisfied, solipsism wins the day, everyone has cream buns for tea.
Except "we" under solipsism is actually "me". Given that the parts of the universe you are not observing right now
still behave consistently including the apparent passage of time, you must
be capable of emulating everything that it is possible to observe more than once on an ongoing basis, and
of making anything that is only observable once perfectly fit into this simulation. A perfectly specified Kythia capable of doing so is absolutely more complex than the minimum-length statement of the laws of physics needed to get us to this point - a statement which doesn't even require
describing Kythia at all (which is good, because even baseline-human Kythia is pretty damn complex). So no, still fails MML.
I was trying to keep to layman's terms before, and may have aimed a bit too high-level. The breaking point here is basically that physical laws are only a handful of bytes each, and you only need a fairly small handful of them in order to derive literally everything else.
This is a high bar for nalternative explanations to beat. "Thor" might seem like a simple explanation of lightning - until you try to define "god", where they come from, his exact powerset, his psychology, etc, all of which are inherent parts of the definition of Thor. While you're specifying all of those, I'll jot down Maxwell's equations and go do something more entertaining.
(As an aside, this is a significant part of the reason I place such emphasis on playing taboo and asking "What do you actually mean
when you say X?")
Shjade, I've been thinking on our discussion for a bit now, because the conclusion still bugged me. And here's the thing: If all is faith (the position you assert), then, as I stated, "X is faith" is literally a null message. So we're left to determine what is worthy of stronger belief... which leaves us with the sort of analysis I'm talking about here. And under such analysis, we're still
left with a false equivalence: p(God,!God) is not a universal distribution. So your inital assertion still rings false: The "faith" put forth by an atheist and a believer are not equivalent, and it is disingenuous and insulting to say so.