About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As always, Joseph, you write well. I have long had a problem with "Occam's Razor" because it does not define "simpler."  William of Ockham was a philosopher of the High Middle Ages. For him, God was real. "God did it" was the simplest explanation, and a very real one. You do not need to google deeply to find political conservatives who denounce the President as a "Marxist Muslim who wants to destroy America."  That explains everything for them.  Personally, I see him as an empty suit managed by VP Joseph Biden, the same way that VP Dick Cheney watched over George W. Bush for those who were centered on George H. W. Bush.  For me, the Grand Conspiracy involves wheels within wheels that we do not perceive. For the simple-minded, the simple explanation is easy to grasp.

 

Politics aside, consider the problem of the "shortest path" cited below. We all know what street repair is like.  I headed straight up the main street and miles from my destination, traffic crawled. I remembered the signs...  Ah, yes... So, I cut across and went a different way.  That was yesterday. Today, I took the "indirect" route; it was much faster.  So, too, with epistemology.  Right now, I happen to be working on a project in topology.  (It's tough; I'm not that smart.)  My point is that with algebra  in particular and mathematics in general, you can state explicitly what your premises and assumptions are.  So, you can go "three sides around the barn" if you want; but the simplest route is best.  

 

But politics - morality, ethics, aesthestics, human events and human action in general - the theorems and axioms are not so nicely laid out.  Did America drift away from the individual rights of the Declaration and to the collectivism of Woodrow Wilson because of a progressive conspiracy, or did most people in most times and places just want more government action to solve common problems? Which is the simpler explanation?  

This is summed up in the famous slogan known as “Ockham's Razor,” often expressed as “Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.”  Although the sentiment is certainly Ockham's, that particular formulation is nowhere to be found in his texts. Moreover, as usually stated, it is a sentiment that virtually all philosophers, medieval or otherwise, would accept; no one wants a needlessly bloated ontology. The question, of course, is which entities are needed and which are not.

Ockham's Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us todeny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. In part, this is because human beings can never be sure they know what is and what is not “beyond necessity”; the necessities are not always clear to us. But even if we did know them, Ockham would still not allow that his Razor allows us to deny entities that are unnecessary. For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/index.html

 

Ockham’s Razor is a principle; that is, it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true (or what there is); but instead that we ought to prefer it on methodological grounds. We are counselled to adopt theories which are minimally efficient, insofar as they can do the same with less. Note that there is apparently no reason why we should do so: a direct route to a destination is neither better nor worse than a diversion unless we include the criterion that we wish to get there by the most direct route (and even then it may not be, so we will return to this analogy later.) Nevertheless, it seems plain enough that we are inclined to favour the simpler explanation, other things being equal. It is this assumption that we shall now examine. -- http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/philosophyofscience/ockhams-razor-r55



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, July 14, 2014 - 2:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I've always though of Occham's Razor as an easy and fast decision maker for topics that did not warrant intensive research or had too little facts to make absolute decisions. Both of course postulate that a) your 'fast and factless decisions' do not lead to disastrous consequences (to yourself or to others) and b) they are constantly reevaluated where new facts present themselves.

If I extend the analogy: if I had two roommates and both could have left the dirty dishes without further evidence I could make a 'razor decision' which of the two would be more likely to have left them (let's say the sloppier of the two, or the one coming home after you went to bed otherwise you'd have seen the dishes before). With that decision I could then simply ask him first if they are his and give him a chance to deny it - I could not make the same decision and accuse ('clean those dirty dishes') him or even penalize ('all household tasks for the rest of the month') him based on that decision.

Something very similar is used in todays legal system: circumstantial evidence. Sadly that is not only used for police officers to point them in directions of possible investigation, but used for judging someones culpability and sending him to jail for life.

So if Occham's Razor is used to save me time and effort, has no (or very little and correctable) adversary effects and leaves me open for future improvement, I'm all for it. If it leads to irreparable damage it's not admissible, no matter how far you push empirical, metaphysical or epistemological validation. The latter of course do help to understand them better - thanx for explaining so clearly :)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, July 14, 2014 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We've discussed Wolfram's NKS here before, but I can't help but see the principle of Occam's Razor as being related.

 

Wolfram's NKS can be summarized as "complexity can arise from simple rules; complexity does not require complex rules."   That doesn't imply that complexity can't also result from complex rules; it simply asserts-- based on observational science and experiment -- that complexity does not depend on complex rules.   Other corollaries are "it isn't usually possible to predict the complexity that can result from simple rules," and another way that same thought is expressed is "the law of unintended consequences."     Wolfram's NKS makes a serious case for making that pithy observation an actual law.

A candidate example is the 'simple' rule of gravity; the 'rule' is understood even if the source of the rule is not.   Ponder for a while all that has emerged in this Universe as a consequence of that 'simple rule.'    One example is, in a Universe made up predominantly of Hydrogen, every element heavier than Hydrogen; all of that minorty consuituent in this Universe-- the heavy elements -- forged inside of stars long dead as a result of gravity.  

 

I suspect, life itself, as in, colloidal suspensions (muddy water) of species made up of those heavy elements in solution along the shores of ancient seas in shallow pools ordered themselves by density into layers, creating billions of mile-years of lab experiments, gradients of gradients of concentrations of species...ordered by gradient. The driver for that order from chaos was yet again....gravity; the source of gradient.   The result was the building blocks of life; complex molecules and proteins and whatnot until what can happen happened.   A higher abstraction of 'simple rules' -- the combinations of GATC --  resulting in, well, things just like Justin Bieber.  Complexity from a simple rule running loose in the Universe...

 

I can't help but see these topics as related to the same observations of what goes on in the Universe; complexity from simple rules.

 

regards,

Fred

 

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/14, 2:47pm)



Post 3

Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 7:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There is a scene in one of my favorite movies "Contact" where Jodie Foster discusses Occam's Razor with Matt McConnoughy's religionist character.  The context is, a discussion over 'The Creator' and 'Ellie' requiring proof.

 

That part of the movie was always a little unsatisfying.   I could never accept that her character would walk headfirst into a loaded debate.  I also didn't see where the argument "Did you love your father? Yes.  Prove it." applied to anything; the muddy implication was that her love for her father was not 'real' since she could not 'prove it.' As a scientist, she claimed she needed 'proof' for a concept that, by its very definition, is unilaterally impervious to proof offered by others; an entity that exists outside of the Univers  we find ourselves in.  I can accept that some love the concept of God.  Love is a concept that easily permits that.   It's not proof of that love that is in question or even questionable; the heart loves what the heart loves.   But he didn't ask 'prove that your father existed.'    There could be all forms and manner of acceptable proof for that.    The argument was a little too clever by half.  As usual, a deflection of the issue at hand.  Does God exist?

 

If we will be, then we will be in some Universe; we may endlessly redefine our understanding of that Universe/megaverse or whatever, but at every point of our understanding, by definition, the concept 'God' is forever outside.    It isn't hard at all to imagine Mankind's ability to dream up both real and imaginary singularities(no mathematical pun intended, or maybe so); we do that all the time.     1/0     The truly amazing aspect of religion is that so much of Mankind falls for the act of other peers jarringly speaking for that which they claim is unimpeachably forever outside the Universe we are in.   A curiously mute God that requires huckster naked sweaty ape politicos to speak for it and amplify its messages, or perhaps, deliver them to us because that God doesn't know our address and needs help.

 

Or, maybe that concept is being abused politically by peers sharing this reality with us; and my choice between those two possibilities is for sure easily guided by the principle of Occam's Razor.

 

Foster's character -- Ellie Arroway, the quintessential Jody Foster character -- gets screwed along the way by religionists(and one charlatain in particular, her kind of boss, the Tom Skerrit character).   Sagan was clearly intrigued -- as a scientist -- with this qustion of religion.    One of the best parts of the book was left out of the film; Sagan examined the question, 'OK-- what might an objective, scientific evidence of a Creator look like?'   In the book, that question was examined by -imagining- researchers looking for -- and finding -- a 'message in Pi' .     The 'message' that was found was graphical; when run out to some massive number of significant digits in some base other than 10, the digits, when placed into a frame of some dimension, displayed a (rasterized) 'perfect circle' with a cross in the center. (Never mind, this depends on pixel aspect ratio.  Lets assume 1:1, a not important detail.)    An unlikely message, buried inside of a physical constant, waiting to be found.    Would that be proof?   That is the question I think he was examining with that.    Because ... would it be proof?    It would certainly be evidence-- evidence that would be hard to explain as mere chance.  "Hidden within Pi is an image of the meaning of the constant Pi."

 

And pure fantasy, because such evidence has not been found.  But not the point of his examining that question.   But in that hypothetical, how would Occam's Razor come down?

 

It was a significant aspect of the book.   I can see why it didn't make it into the film.   It kind of got glossed into Arroway's bewilderment over what she experienced.     What I took away from the ending of that film and reading the book was the sense of a scientist looking at the Universe as it is and realizing it is miracle enough.   Some have argued that Arroway's character had a kind of spiritual transformational religious epipheny because of her witnessing 'a celestial cosmic event' and her description of 'being a part of something much bigger than ourselves' , but I didn't see that as anything other than a realization that she learned, in the context of this story and her experience, that we are not alone in the Universe, that it is teaming with life.   I thought that was pretty specific in both the book and the story and is entirely consistant with Sagan's other discussions about the probability -- no, liklihood-- that there is not only life elsewhere in the Universe, but lots of it.  Sagan, I think it safe to say, was enthralled with that question: are we alone?   It's clear to me he believed 'not.'

 

I think Occam's Razor also falls down on Sagan's side of that assessment.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 4

Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 7:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." Carl Sagan 



Post 5

Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

the cross in PI is just as illusionary as the probability of a christian god - it was used in the celtic cross and several religions long before christ - at it's most simplistic interpretation it could simply mean a crossroad reached or x marks the spot where the treasure lies

 

Ellie's one misstep in the entire movie (love all of Jody Foster's movies :) was her desperate need to translate her scientific hunger for that alien life (obviously more intelligent than the species she was currently dealing with - they kept them at a distance until further maturation) to those around her - of course they not only did not share it, but reviled it, so what if they rejected her experience? no skin off her nose if other's didn't 'believe' it (which is how she started out at Arecibo) - not to mention her boyfriend, the great believer, validating her succumbing to 'belief' ... the end left me a little sad: like a 'recovering lunatic' finding small comfort in the reflected glory of sand particles - she'll never reach them in her lifetime so she has to make do with preparing the next generation ... I'd have loved it if she'd gone out searching for another Hadden and building a new machine free of the government fools with their 95% deluded questions

ah well: we have to find that common sense of belonging to this human species or it's not worth making a Hollywood movie out of it - right? :P we can still deconstruct it and draw our own conclusions from the material presented ;)

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." Carl Sagan

that may be so - but it also multiplies the propensity toward fanaticism in that one clergy



Post 6

Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 9:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Perhaps a contrary to Occam's Razor is the challenge that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  That is balanced by the assurance of guru Wayne Dyer, "You'll see it when you believe it."  Empedocles of Akragas was not alone in finding seashells on hilltops and then positing that the land was once under the sea. Living close to the sea, experiencing volcanoes and earthquakes, it was easy to believe.  

 

"William Smith (1769 – 1839) drew the first geological maps of England. He was born into a culture that was certain that the world had been created at 9:00 AM on Monday, October 23, 4004 BC.  He died twenty years before The Origin of Species was published.  Yet, he invented the predictive science of geology by marking time with fossils." -- The Map that Changed the World by Simon Winchester, reviewed on my blog here.  Smith worked in two areas: coal mines and canal building.  Cutting through England, he saw the underlying strata revealed. Coal was money; but farmers wanted to know if they had coal on their land before they let it be dug up. Smith knew how to predict the presence of coal from the geology, from the fossils.  Moreover, he foreshadowed Darwin by asserting (from evidence) that simpler forms of the same species always come beneath more complex forms, never the other way around -- unless the land had been "folded".  That, too, presaged the theory of tectonic plates.  William Smith's mind was open to the facts. They spoke to him simply and frankly and he accepted them.

 

For Sagan and others, if aliens had visited Earth or if God exists, or if Jesus or Mohammed (among others) were what they claimed, then proof would not be lacking. It would be available to everyone.  But, following Dyer, you have to believe it to see it. That was not the method of William Smith. He did not "believe" anything: he only observed facts and (successfully) attempted to order them.  A similar - less dramatic - story comes from Mendele'ev and the periodic table.  He sought some regular order, but did not know what it would be.  So, he put the characteristics of each element on a card and played solitaire... over a long time...

 

You could argue that he "believed" that order must exist, but many people believe in "order" and find the cause in God.  William of Ockham himself surely did.  

 

FB:  There is a scene in one of my favorite movies "Contact" where Jodie Foster discusses Occam's Razor with Matt McConnoughy's religionist character.  The context is, a discussion over 'The Creator' and 'Ellie' requiring proof.  That part of the movie was always a little unsatisfying.  ... researchers looking for -- and finding -- a 'message in Pi' .     The 'message' that was found was graphical; when run out to some massive number of significant digits in some base other than 10, the digits, when placed into a frame of some dimension, displayed a (rasterized) 'perfect circle' ...  

 

Base 13, as I recall.  But several steps in the process of "making sense" of the data led to the final surprising solution.  (See Smith and Mendele'ev above.)  In fact, I think that they actually built the transporters first; and then later they found the circle and pi in base 13 because they expected more information within the message.

 

But, we have to separate the movie from the book. (Look at all the conservatives who think that Atlas Shrugged is about socialism.  They do not see themselves as others see them.)  For a comparison, the single most popular page on my blog is "What Did Dorothy Learn?"  No one seems to know.

"Well... I think that it ... That it wasn't enough just to want to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em.  And it's that if  I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any farther than my own back yard because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with."

 

That statement is nonsense -- and is not in the original story.   So, credit Hollywood with knowing that no one really wants to be struck dumb in the last minute of a movie.  (I saw that once.  Colossus: the Forbin Project.  Tension builds and builds as Forbin argues with Colossus, with scenes of world capitals presumably falling under Colossus's control, and Forbin insists that people will resist.  And Colossus says, "They will learn to love me."  The End -- but without even the card THE END. End of movie... lights go on...  We sat there.  We thought the film broke...  Someone in back spoke up: "Colossus is Greek for 'leaves ya hanging, folks!'"  It took a few seconds to sink in...

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/17, 9:47am)



Post 7

Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael:

 

Collosus: The Forbin Project

 

I so remember that movie.   Its been redone alot in various forms.    The Terminator series, for instance and SkyNet running amok.    Or the latest version in Halle Berry's Extant.   You can see the question being raised with the whole 'humanichs' thing and the oddly autistic little tin boy.   (Edit: how could I forget The Matrix?     I, Robot?  GATTACA?   ...  not to mention every movie made in the 50s.   There are alot of movies angsting about how evil technology is going to rear up and eat our lunch one day.   Oddly, few of them made using shadow figures in front of candles.)

 

 

I'm having trouble with that word 'humanichs;'   every time I see or hear it, I think "Manwich."   Mabe that is intentional.

 

 


   

 

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/17, 6:17pm)



Post 8

Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"What Did Dorothy Learn?"  No one seems to know.

 

Yes, that line always seemed a little vaguely sappy.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why menacing monkey guards would march around chanting about Oreos.... o RE o.....   O RE o....

 

 

But think of the times; 1939, 1940.  Barely out of the Great Depression.  War rumbling in Europe.   There was a lot of sappy being sold.   People were yearning for sappy.

 

1940.  The Grapes of Wrath.    The kindly old benevolent government Santa Clause character running the clean government camp where decent folks policed the hoedown and kept the criminal capitalist thugs at bay.

 

"Wherever you see the l'il guy taking it on the chin, I'll be there, Ma Joad."

 

All kinds of sappy slop being sold back then.   Still is.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.