4 ms·
More specifically, > two hypotheses for which the evidence supports both If they are supported by the same evidence, then the truth that is being supported mu
by unabst 10y ago
More specifically,
> two hypotheses for which the evidence supports both
If they are supported by the same evidence, then the truth that is being supported must be the same. The simplest hypothesis is therefore the smaller nutshell that captures that truth. The other one is bloated, and bloated information (what this is all about) punishes us with complexity and irrelevance.
Fundamentally, any theory is an abstraction of evidence. Ockham's razor is about the quality of said abstraction.
- amelius 10y agoStill, how do you define "simplest"? This seems quite arbitrary.
- unabst 10y agoLess is not arbitrary. Be it fewer assumptions, variables, bits, rules... And these are all abstractions. Abstractions can be counted, so all simple really means is fewer abstractions. Theories tend to refine themselves because ultimately we arrive at one word, and with new evidence, even words will adapt. What was gravity yesterday is graviton today.
- Klockan 10y agoIt is easy to do in many cases. Take the following two theories: Rocks falls downwards since masses attracts each other. Rocks falls downwards due to invisible ghosts making masses attract each other. Both of these theories have the same amount of evidence supporting them, but one is strictly simpler than the other. If one theory isn't a simple reduction of the other then Occam's razor doesn't apply, but in those cases it is usually possible to make experiments which disproves one of them.
- srtjstjsj 10y agoThe invisible ghosts are called "gravitons" in mainstream physics community :-)