4 ms·

You can't describe how one explanation doesn't fit with Occam's definition of simpler, without saying what the other explanation is. That's the whole point of

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  The Razor, as originally stated by William of Occam, is: "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" (see wikipedia) [1]. Clearly, assuming a third person was in the car is "multiplying entities without necessity". Note also that the original formulation of the Razor makes no mention of hypotheses, competing or otherwise, or of any requirement for comparisons. Even going by the more modern interpetation of (stated informally) "prefer the simplest hypothesis", a comparison can be made "on the fly": any hypothesis that needs a third person in the car is less simple than a hypothesis that doesn't need a third person in the car. So we can prune away the entire branch of the hypothesis search tree that begins with "suppose there was a third person in the car" without wasting any time considering those hypotheses even if we don't yet have any competing hypotheses. And, btw, we sure do: there were two people in the car and they caused the crash. That's a competing hypothesis. I don't know why people keep saying "there's no competing hypothesis". That you don't like that hypothesis makes no difference. You'll notice also that the more modern interpretation ends up agreeing with the original: any hypothesis that needs a third person in the car is "multiplying entities without necessity" (the entities being the people in the car), whereas any hypothesis that doesn't need a third person is leaving the number of entities (at least people in the car) well enough alone. _____________ [1] No, please, really do see wikipedia. I think it will help clarify much confusion about what the Razor is. For instance, there are five or six different formulations of the Razor, each with its own, multiple, interpretations. But I can't see any one that "requires a comparison". That sounds to me more like a Calvinball rule. If you want to say I'm "using it wrong", then start by clarifying which formulation and what interpetation of it you are using, as I have done throughout this thread.
  • SamBam 6y ago
    > (see wikipedia) > Note also that the original formulation of the Razor makes no mention of hypotheses, competing or otherwise, or of any requirement for comparisons. Well, the Wikipedia article states, in the very first line: > ...or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. and further down it defines what a "razor" even is: > The term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by "shaving away" unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions. So both of these do seem to directly relate to comparisons. It's not simply a misunderstanding of the term to say that Occam's Razor involves comparisons of competing hypotheses. > any hypothesis that needs a third person in the car is less simple than a hypothesis that doesn't need a third person in the car. The trouble is you need to define what you mean by "entities." Obviously this does not need to literally refer to bodies. It means facets and complications of the hypothesis. So we need to decide which hypothesis requires more entities: one that supposes the possibility of a third person, or one that supposes the possibility of people tricking an autopilot to do what no one believes it ought to be able to do. The point is, we need something beyond what we have been told. If it were simply "drunk man crashes into tree," we need no further explanations, no further entities. That story explains itself. But if the initial story isn't by itself sufficient -- "autopilot drove itself at high speed in a narrow cul-de-sac with no one in the driver's seat, against all programing and prior experience of Tesla cars" -- then we must hypothesize additional entities. Wonky programming. Hacked system. 160 lb weight on the driver's seat and fake hands on the steering wheel. Third person. I don't know that the third person hypothesis is, in fact, simpler. But I don't think you can say that Occam's Razor suggests that that should not be a rational hypothesis. I don't know how many additional entities would be required to get a Tesla to do what was suggested in the article.
    • YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      Yes, wikipedia gives different interpretations of the Razor that, as you say, "directly relate to comparisons". None of them requires a comparison. I mean, you won't find that rule anywhere: "to use the Razor, you must make a comparison, otherwise you can't use the Razor". That is Calvinball. >> The trouble is you need to define what you mean by "entities." I think this is splitting hairs. A person in the car is clearly an "entity". Assuming a third person in the car is "multiplying entities". >> Wonky programming. Hacked system. 160 lb weight on the driver's seat and fake hands on the steering wheel. Third person. ... or a 160 lb bag of stones. Or three giant rabbits. Or a pair of labradors. Or... etc. We really don't need to assume any of this. The two people in the car and sufficed to have caused an accident. Assuming more people, or anything else, is multiplying entities without necessity.