Let's talk Occam's Razor

This is perhaps my new favorite theorem. This theorem, in a very simplified form, basically says that in any given competition of two or more scientific theories, the theory with the least amount of assumptions should always be preferable. Occam's Razor is often applied to philosophy, religion, human experience, and even probability. In fact, Marcus Hutter has mathematically proven Occam's razor in his analysis of probability.
though it may seem like it, Occam's razor is not infinitely regressive, the principle says that when constantly comparing competing theories, you will eventually reach an absolute theory that leaves little to no assumptions. i.e. Newton's Laws of thermodynamics.
Where the contentions often occur though, are when the razor is applied philosophy and religion. I believe that this principle should be applied to scientific observations because...

1. it makes sense that the theory that produces the most evidence and least assumptions should be the preferable theory, that theory is not necessarily right, but it's more right than it's competition. i.e. God vs. evolution.

2. I cannot personally think of any scientific theory that goes against Occam's razor.

any disagreement, or questions?

I always thought it was a given that whatever has less assumptions is seen as the better theory, but now that this is mathematically proven, maybe others will think the same. I want to see the equation that Hutter used. There is no way I could read it, but I want to see just how crazy it is.

I agree. Where we find the most contention though is when Occam's Razor is applied to God. I didn't want to post this in the God thread because Occam's Razor is so much more than that, but most people would agree if we just talked about applying this principle to anything BUT God.

http://www.hutter1.net/official/main.htm check out Hutters webpage.

How does Occam's Razor define simplicity, though? To my knowledge there are, more or less, many instances where we find that dictating simplicity can dictate what gets explained. I think it varies based on the degree of variety in the situation, and probably rejects common anomalies for the sake of its own subjectivity.

I'm not really arguing against Occam's Razor, but I am curious about how it addresses the epistemic value it holds on the other end of the spectrum; whereas, there is validity in a number of abstract theories. Does it always choose the simplest theory for the sake of maintaining that idea?