Occam’s Razor loosely says that, when looking for an explanation for certain phenomena, if two explanations compete, if all else is equal, pick the explanation that is simpler.
On many levels this seems intuitive. If it is true, WHY is it true? It may be a pragmatic truth - it helps us do science, but it cannot be proven. Is that the case? Or is it false?
Any thoughts about Occam’s Razor?
Ockham’s Razor is a cliche gone mad; Murphy’s Law on philosophical steroids. I’ve never seen it as anything more than a logical/philosophical ‘rule of thumb’ - not something ‘true’ in any strict sense.
That’s an excellent point. We really can’t consider it to be “TRUE” any more than we can consider induction to be true. But, we can consider both to be good rules of thumb, don’t you think?
With induction, just because something has happened 100 times, doesn’t mean it will happen that 101st time - but the rule of thumb that it does mean that in general has worked phenomenally well, and basically given us all of science.
Occam’s Razor seems just the same, to me. We can think of cases in which, retrospectively, it didn’t work out. When Newton began his physics, his equations explained the motion of the heavens just as well as Einstein’s (because they couldn’t test the differences, back then), so you would have rejected Einstein and gone with Newton. That’s how science goes. But can you think of an example where Occam’s Razor CURRENTLY (not in retrospect) claims we should disregard a theory that is clearly correct, or claims we should accept a theory that’s clearly wrong? In other words, it is a rule of thumb, but is it not a good one?
Twiffy - It doesn’t quite say that. “Simpler” here means specifically “with the fewest assumptions”. The theory with the fewest assumptions might not be, ultimately, the simplest. It is a very good rule of thumb, indeed, but is only that - a tool. It is not even that unless the specific type of simplicity - elegance in the number of assumptions - is the object. No rule of logic produces truth - they produce implications.
Hmm, I disagree that “simpler” means “fewer assumptions”. It seems more like simpler would mean “fewer untestable predictions”, or something close to that line. Any thoughts on that?
I do not make the news, Twiff. I’m just letting you know what the Razor states. “Simpler” was your term.
A man is lost in the mountains of a vast foreign land. With precious little food and after days of struggle he finds a mountain path. Hoping to make his way to a town he begins to follow it. As he goes along he meets a crossroads leading in many directions. He looks around at the places the paths seem to lead to. Some of the branches lead to forbidding summits or impassable crags, while some seem relatively easy and lead down into less mountainous regions, or even lush valleys and plains. Ordinarily our man is adventurous and bold, but since he is lost with precious little food, he takes the easiest path, hoping he will be able to travel farther.
This is Occam’s razor. We are all lost in the foreign land that lies beyond the edges of our consciousness, our knowledge. We know we will not live forever to explore this land. So we look for indications that certain paths will take us farther than others. One of these indications is ‘simplicity’, by which we mean something like easiness to understand – easiness of walking the path.
Occam’s razor is no citadel of Enlightenment rationality and science. It is a prudent and humble admission of human frailty, together with a strategem to make the most of our precious little vitality. You can play the what-if game with Occam’s razor if you like; but the man who takes heed of Occam is soon walking again, while you are still standing at the crossroads. Which man you prefer to be is up to you.
I disagree. Occam’s razor is a natural law. An eternal truth in all ways.
Everything works in the most efficient way. Everything. Nothing puts more effort into an action than the benefit that will result.
Metaphor.
You can make a flour tortilla or bread. The tortilla takes five minutes to make, the bread takes an hour. If you know for sure that they are both equally beneficial, you will make the tortilla.
An action will only be done if the good is greater than the bad. Effort (expenditure of energy) is bad.
That is the first part, there’s more.
(wow, this is the first time I’ve dissagreed with faust!)
Is this a challenge, zeus? Are you challenging me?
Cool.
Truth be told, I have no real use for the Razor, whatever the hell it’s suposed to say. I did post on this, but it was not in any advocacy of the Razor. Again, I was just reporting the news.
I am interested in efficiency, but I’m not crazy about tortillas, which counts for more.
I was surely not making a point about simplicity, but about the Razor itself.
Tex-mex, in general, reminds me of food that was prepared, sat out for a while, and was then discarded.
As I have just arranged for a rendezvous with a totally delicious blonde, I cannot focus on this supposed disagreement. But to say that everything works in the most efficient way is to say that effiency is something we need never think about.
You really mean that?
What I was trying to say is that the reason the razor is considered good is that it mimics nature. More complex structures are less likely to arise than less complex ones.
Maybe its safest if I only apply this to animals and humans first.
Formula:
if (positive consequences < (energy expenditure + negative consequences))
do
This is only half complete. Fully, it reads
if (increase in chance of survival) <= (decrease in chance of survival)
//where effort is included in the decrease part.
do
There you go. It’s part of my interest in emergence. My main project is to find the fewest parameters needed to create a universe.
I must admit I do not understand your qualm. Is it that you think that thought would be impossible if the universe was as described, or what? I don’t get it. Please explain.
I hope your delicious blond doesn’t smell like tex-mex or anything. That would be gross.
The subject matter of the Razor is not the phenomena, but the explanations. If what you claim works as an analogy, then I have no objection.
I do not understand your notation. Is this a formal proof of your claim? Everyone’s got their own notation, you know? Can you translate?
She smelled great.
Apart from the metaphor, I don’t think that’s completely true…
People do things all the time that are more work and less benefit one of the major motivators of this is perceived benefit.
Think of smoking and drinking. People spend money, harm their bodies, suffer hangovers, make asses out themselvles, and injure themselves and others for no tangible benefits. It would be easier and far more beneficial for people not to drink but lots of us still do… in fact, I think I’ll have a beer right now.
cheers,
gemty
Penn Gillette doesn’t drink!
neither do I… hic
Exactly! This is the answer to faust’s qualm. Complete the formula reads
if the perceived increase in chance of survival is greater than the perceived decrease in chance of survival (with effort included as a decrease) then the action will be done.
Thus the described universe would not be determinist (automatic, I think), but would have free will. Alcohol and drugs may or may not be errors in the prediction of consequences.
“Wisdom is the accurate forseence of consequences”
And intelligence is the will to look far in the future and forsee completely. To evaluate all strings of consequence to their logical end.
My notation is C++, the most logical language in the world. Except for the <, which should be a <=, and the do, which is unecessary and should look like this.
if ()
expression
or this
if ()
[
expression
]
Hehehe. Boggling isnt it.
Oh, I forgot to say. I think beer may have benefits, though they are probably not exceeding of the detriments.
I agree with Gemty; drinking alcohol is usually not in the best interests of the individual. In very specific cases and quantities alcohol has benefits; but even then, there are ways to get the benefits that cause none of the detriments. What you hear often is that a glass of red wine a day is good for the heart. What you don’t hear very often (but which is true nonetheless) is that a glass of grape juice a day is better for the heart, and doesn’t cause liver or brain damage.
Of course, many people have a beer or a glass of wine to relax after a stressful day. The unfortunate consequence of using a substance to artificially relax is that you become dependent on it. Most people don’t become alcoholics, but do begin to associate the need (to relax) immediately with the perceived cure (drinking).
If we learned the easy and available ways to relax that didn’t involve drinking the world’s only water- AND fat-soluble neurotoxin, the world would probably be a better place.
Thezeus - I would say that intelligence is the ability to look far into the future and accurately forsee consequences, and wisdom is the tendency to use your intelligence and act accordingly.
zeusy - I’m still not quite getting it, although I think I will not no matter what you try. Determinism and free will, which is for some purposes one term, is a purely theological notion. What has this to do with assessing scientific theora? I am not sure just what battle you are fighting.
I realise that theology was Occam’s field, and that this was the original use of this device. But science is a bit different now than it once was, and determinism is no longer a part of it. Is it? I mean, I think this skirmish is well over.
I must be missing something, but I do not know what.