[wazz]

Well the way I understand it (I know it was originally defined differently) was that in absence of other information, the simpler explanation for a phenomenon is more likely to be true. I've seen it explained that this is not a 'theory', in the sense that it is merely a rule to choose between theories, but this strikes me as wrong given you could choose the alternative theory (given no more information) that the more complicated theory is likely to be true, or even that the simplicity or complexity of a theory has no bearing on its truth-value.

Given that information can be quantified, would it not be possible to construct a continuous 'theory-space' whereby different theories are compared, then some prior probability criterion applied and compared to the results of applying ockham's razor? I guess that would be an analytic way of doing it, and that may well be the only way, if logical methods are out of the window.

I'm sorry if this question is a little too silly/abstract or badly worded, or even absurd - I'm out of practise, please humour me.