>>16060669No, occam's razor DOES imply it's the most likely, since it's the most logical option. If it wasn't the most likely possibility, then there would be no reason to put precedent of it as being logical over another reasoning.
The only way something backed by occam's razor stops being the most likely is when the evidence shown points otherwise; and as of now, there is no evidence to show that it's more likely for the models we have to be placeholders than rather to simply be the megas themselves (especially with their slight differences, and the only reason people suggesting it is because of similar models and not wanting the mega-latis to look like that)
>Which hints back to earlier when the concept of new mega's being added in was stated. This is what I was arguing against, and saying the evidence wasn't there to support.Here's where this falls apart.
1. both assume new models of mega are going to be added in (1 for more pokemon, the other because of the latis being assumed to be placeholders)
2. GF has a precedent for adding formes to things.
3. GF has a precedent of only having a placeholder in the code, but no placeholder model for added formes
Basically, the assumption of no new megas and latis being the placeholder also assumes:
-Gamefreak isn't going to add more item based alt formes after 2 generations of it
-Gamefreak is going to change how they do placeholders
-Gamefreak is going to do heavy data patches.
