I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.
So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
The intent of the principle does not depend on Occam’s actual words.
The intent can be summarised as “All other things being equal, prefer a model that is based on fewest assumptions.”
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
When your razor has taken that much punishment the simplest thing is to grow a beard.
Ian said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
When your razor has taken that much punishment the simplest thing is to grow a beard.
I don’t think that’s a statement of O’sR, but I’d say it does encapsulate an equally valuable, and much more often overlooked, principle.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Ian said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
When your razor has taken that much punishment the simplest thing is to grow a beard.
I don’t think that’s a statement of O’sR, but I’d say it does encapsulate an equally valuable, and much more often overlooked, principle.
Occam would have been better keeping his razor in a pyramid… would’ve kept it sharper…
:P
Looks like the ATO is going after illegal foreign buyers in the RE market…might make for some cheap houses briefly in Sydney and those other cities that don’t matter as much…
soz.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
Minimize the smart arsery.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
poikilotherm said:
Looks like the ATO is going after illegal foreign buyers in the RE market…might make for some cheap houses briefly in Sydney and those other cities that don’t matter as much…
Occam’s razor states that tax targets should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Fruit here, a couple of peaches and a bunch of grapes.
The question was prompted by this extract from a New Scientist article, looking at the possibility that quantum level interactions control (or affect) brain behaviour:
“The most basic objection comes from Occam’s razor, the principle that says the simplest explanation is usually the best. In this view, current non-quantum ideas of the brain’s workings are doing just fine. “The evidence is building up that we can explain everything interesting about the mind in terms of interactions of neurons,” says philosopher Paul Thagard of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. Physicist David Deutsch of the University of Oxford agrees. “Is there any need to invoke quantum physics to explain cognition?” he asks. “I don’t know of one, and I’d be amazed if one emerges.””
It seems to me that this is a mis-application of the principle, since quantum level interaction is not an entity that has been invented to explain an aspect of brain behaviour that could be explained more simply. It is an entity that has been found to fit other evidence very well. The question is what effect (if any) do these interactions have on the brain?
Roger Penrose used to argue that we won’t be able to understand consciousness unless we assume the brain relies on quantum processing of some kind, so we could say their view is that Occam’s Razor apparently disqualifies that approach to modelling brain function.
Bubblecar said:
Roger Penrose used to argue that we won’t be able to understand consciousness unless we assume the brain relies on quantum processing of some kind, so we could say their view is that Occam’s Razor apparently disqualifies that approach to modelling brain function.
Penrose still does argue that, according to the article.
I don’t think Occam’s Razor disqualifies anything, it merely suggests the most promising prospects for progress.
But in this case I think the approach stated above is mistaken at another level, in that the assumption that quantum interactions do not affect the brain is also an assumption, which as far as I can see has no more justification that the assumption that they do.
Surely the appropriate assumption, until evidence shows otherwise, is that these interactions may have some effect.
Isn’t Occam’s Razor more of a sensible guideline than an absolute, work from simplest upwards
>The evidence is building up that we can explain everything interesting about the mind in terms of interactions of neurons..”
leans on interesting a lot, peculiarly, not that I mind peculiar.
might add too it’s neurons + quite a few million years of evolution
problem with trying for oversimple is it appeals to brutish ideological devices.
Cymek said:
Isn’t Occam’s Razor more of a sensible guideline than an absolute, work from simplest upwards
That’s how I would see it, but it seems some scientists see it as being more than that.
Or at least pop-science journalists like to report the opinions of some scientists as if they saw it as being more than that.
>”…we can explain everything..”
there’s that idiot we thing again too
When scientists talk about Occam’s Razor “ruling out” this or that hypothesis, they’re really just referring to a provisional sorting of speculative ideas. The simpler ones are preferred if they seem to work satisfactorily but future research might make the “razored’ ideas relevant again.
Bubblecar said:
Roger Penrose used to argue that we won’t be able to understand consciousness unless we assume the brain relies on quantum processing of some kind, so we could say their view is that Occam’s Razor apparently disqualifies that approach to modelling brain function.
I would argue with Roger Penrose that we need to understand the chemical relationship of consciousness with the human body
how the electro-chemistry interacts with the environment through sensory perception
how electro chemistry forms thoughts images dreams awareness intent etc
how the electro electro chemical nature of the brain works with quantum processing, I guess they will need more than MRI scans to figure that out
but we are learning a lot from MRI scans, mapping of behaviors, orgasms etc
:)
CrazyNeutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
Roger Penrose used to argue that we won’t be able to understand consciousness unless we assume the brain relies on quantum processing of some kind, so we could say their view is that Occam’s Razor apparently disqualifies that approach to modelling brain function.
I would argue with Roger Penrose that we need to understand the chemical relationship of consciousness with the human body
how the electro-chemistry interacts with the environment through sensory perception
how electro chemistry forms thoughts images dreams awareness intent etc
how the electro electro chemical nature of the brain works with quantum processing, I guess they will need more than MRI scans to figure that out
but we are learning a lot from MRI scans, mapping of behaviors, orgasms etc
:)
learning the elecro-chemistry relationship of each of the human emotions
and how the brain interacts with the external environment through sensory perception and electro chemical processing within the brain
lots of research
im just of disability pension
with a damn toothache
It will be good when we can remove pain completely
CrazyNeutrino said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
Roger Penrose used to argue that we won’t be able to understand consciousness unless we assume the brain relies on quantum processing of some kind, so we could say their view is that Occam’s Razor apparently disqualifies that approach to modelling brain function.
I would argue with Roger Penrose that we need to understand the chemical relationship of consciousness with the human body
how the electro-chemistry interacts with the environment through sensory perception
how electro chemistry forms thoughts images dreams awareness intent etc
how the electro electro chemical nature of the brain works with quantum processing, I guess they will need more than MRI scans to figure that out
but we are learning a lot from MRI scans, mapping of behaviors, orgasms etc
:)
learning the elecro-chemistry relationship of each of the human emotions
and how the brain interacts with the external environment through sensory perception and electro chemical processing within the brain
lots of research
im just of disability pension
with a damn toothache
It will be good when we can remove pain completely
Biofeedback control, some pain would be necessary to alert you to bodily injury or illness.
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
CrazyNeutrino said:I would argue with Roger Penrose that we need to understand the chemical relationship of consciousness with the human body
how the electro-chemistry interacts with the environment through sensory perception
how electro chemistry forms thoughts images dreams awareness intent etc
how the electro electro chemical nature of the brain works with quantum processing, I guess they will need more than MRI scans to figure that out
but we are learning a lot from MRI scans, mapping of behaviors, orgasms etc
:)
learning the elecro-chemistry relationship of each of the human emotions
and how the brain interacts with the external environment through sensory perception and electro chemical processing within the brain
lots of research
im just of disability pension
with a damn toothache
It will be good when we can remove pain completely
Biofeedback control, some pain would be necessary to alert you to bodily injury or illness.
removal of phantom pain would be good..
and not affect biofeedback
stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:learning the elecro-chemistry relationship of each of the human emotions
and how the brain interacts with the external environment through sensory perception and electro chemical processing within the brain
lots of research
im just of disability pension
with a damn toothache
It will be good when we can remove pain completely
Biofeedback control, some pain would be necessary to alert you to bodily injury or illness.
removal of phantom pain would be good..
and not affect biofeedback
You get it?
Cymek said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:Biofeedback control, some pain would be necessary to alert you to bodily injury or illness.
removal of phantom pain would be good..
and not affect biofeedback
You get it?
yeah, a lot
stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:
stumpy_seahorse said:removal of phantom pain would be good..
and not affect biofeedback
You get it?
yeah, a lot
That must be weird and unsettling
Cymek said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:You get it?
yeah, a lot
That must be weird and unsettling
mostly just annoying
stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:
stumpy_seahorse said:yeah, a lot
That must be weird and unsettling
mostly just annoying
Perhaps the fact phantom limb pain exists means prosthetics may one day work like real limbs and have feeling in them
The Rev Dodgson said:
I always thought that the words that Occam actually used to define his razor were:
“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” or actually “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate”,
but I now discover that he did not actually write these words; they were written by someone else.So my question is:
What formulation of Occam’s Razor best states the intent of the principle?
Which is best? Many variations on the statement of Occam’s Razor can be found in the wikipedia article:
1. Avoid superfluous ontological apparatus
2. (Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam’s razor:) shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation
3. Simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable
4. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity
5. Make the simplest suppositions that are necessary to describe
6. We may assume the superiority of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.
7. It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer
8. That is better and more valuable which requires fewer, other circumstances being equal
9. It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many
10. To make two suppositions when one is enough is to err by way of excessive supposition
11. Plurality must never be posited without necessity
12. Allow no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances
13. Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences from unknown entities
14. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one
15. All assumptions introduce possibilities for error; if an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory, its only effect is to increase the probability that the overall theory is wrong
16. A hypothesis with fewer adjustable parameters will automatically have an enhanced posterior probability, due to the fact that the predictions it makes are sharp
17. We prefer simpler theories to more complex ones because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable
18. The simplest theory is the more informative
19. Simplicity is evidence for truth
20. The principle of simplicity is a fundamental synthetic a priori truth
21. Unnecessary elements in a symbolism mean nothing
22. The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences
23. Parsimony is an important heuristic
24. Parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference
“Most of the time, Occam’s razor is a conservative tool, cutting out crazy, complicated constructions and assuring that hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day, thus yielding normal science: models of explanation and prediction. There are, however, notable exceptions where Occam’s razor turns a conservative scientist into a reluctant revolutionary. For example, Max Planck interpolated between the Wien and Jeans radiation laws and used Occam’s razor logic to formulate the quantum hypothesis, even resisting that hypothesis as it became more obvious that it was correct.”
So, which is best? I actually like number 17 because it includes two valid reasons why Occam’s razor should be used.
>So, which is best?
quick look at them, i’m not sure the general idea is entirely reliable applied to human behaviour, given motivations evolve. For example, the moment an individual’s desires are acted on (physical expression) the force (of potentials) can very quickly transition to something else, be dissembled and effectively obliterated, somewhat defying clear analysis and explanation.
There’s other things too, like overdetermination in the social field.
One thing I do like about the idea, is that it allows for no explanation at all and the thing itself being whatever it is (or might become) – it allows for the possibility that no explanation being more correct than an explanation (or act of trying distorting) involving significant shortcomings.
Minds do it all the time, whatever resolves to an unconclusion (paradox alert), it backs off from the need to explain, refuses a construction, and lets the complexity or absence of, maybe evolve or be whatever it is respectively.
Unconclusion’s a powerful good.
transition said:
One thing I do like about the idea, is that it allows for no explanation at all and the thing itself being whatever it is (or might become) – it allows for the possibility that no explanation being more correct than an explanation (or act of trying distorting) involving significant shortcomings.Minds do it all the time, whatever resolves to an unconclusion (paradox alert), it backs off from the need to explain, refuses a construction, and lets the complexity or absence of, maybe evolve or be whatever it is respectively.
Unconclusion’s a powerful good.
I think the above would make more sense in prose.
>I think the above would make more sense in prose.
was toyin’ with no explanation bein’ the simplist explanation
transition said:
was toyin’ with no explanation bein’ the simplist explanation
This makes sense.