3 ms·

> (see wikipedia) > Note also that the original formulation of the Razor makes no mention of hypotheses, competing or otherwise, or of any requirement for comp

by 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.
- SamBam 6y ago
  > That is Calvinball. Stop with the condescension. The wikipedia article literally defines "razor" as "distinguishing between two hypotheses." If you disagree with that, edit the article, but don't tell me to read the article ("No, please, really do") and then dispute it. > The two people in the car and sufficed to have caused an accident. You keep saying that. I don't know it's true. Do you know it's true? Like others have said said, this would go against every prior experience with Teslas, and our understanding of how the system works. It would be the first Tesla, ever, to have gotten into an accident on a narrow residential road with no one in the driver's seat. You need something else in the explanation, even just "the system actually works in some other way." That is also multiplying entities. That was my point, which you missed. You can't simply state, ipso facto, that the description given "sufficed to have caused an accident," when numerous people have disagreed with that.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    There is a misunderstanding I'd like to clear up. By saying "Calvinball" I am not being condescending. I am calling you out for trying to invalidate my entire line of reasoning by introducting a new rule to Occam's Razor, that it must be used in a comparison (between two hypotheses). This is a rule that is not there in the original formulation of "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is also not there in subsequent interpretations, including the interpretation you quote from wikipedia. It's a rule that you came up with and it is a rule that you came up with for the sole purpose of helping you win the internet argument. So it's a Calvinball rule. Besides which, as I said before, there do exist many hypotheses that we could be making and the Razor is useful in prunning many of them away before we have to waste our time formulating them and exploring them in detail. For example, all the hypotheses that start with "Suppose there was a third person in the car" need not be considered because "there was a third person in the car" is "multiplying entities without necessity", and so hypotheses that make such an assumption are less likely to be true than hypotheses that do not. The misunderstanding I'm pointing out and that I advised you to read wikipedia to clear up, is that you seem to understand the Razor as requiring at least two competing hypotheses to be fully formed to the point that they could be written down, perhaps even in a formal language. There is no such requirement. That's your Calvinball rule, made up on the spot and for the sole purpose of winning the internet argument. Or, perhaps, only for the purpose of forcing me to waste my time by considering all the unnecessary hypotheses that start with "suppose there was a third person in the car".

by SamBam 6y ago

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.

SamBam 6y ago
> That is Calvinball. Stop with the condescension. The wikipedia article literally defines "razor" as "distinguishing between two hypotheses." If you disagree with that, edit the article, but don't tell me to read the article ("No, please, really do") and then dispute it. > The two people in the car and sufficed to have caused an accident. You keep saying that. I don't know it's true. Do you know it's true? Like others have said said, this would go against every prior experience with Teslas, and our understanding of how the system works. It would be the first Tesla, ever, to have gotten into an accident on a narrow residential road with no one in the driver's seat. You need something else in the explanation, even just "the system actually works in some other way." That is also multiplying entities. That was my point, which you missed. You can't simply state, ipso facto, that the description given "sufficed to have caused an accident," when numerous people have disagreed with that.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  There is a misunderstanding I'd like to clear up. By saying "Calvinball" I am not being condescending. I am calling you out for trying to invalidate my entire line of reasoning by introducting a new rule to Occam's Razor, that it must be used in a comparison (between two hypotheses). This is a rule that is not there in the original formulation of "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is also not there in subsequent interpretations, including the interpretation you quote from wikipedia. It's a rule that you came up with and it is a rule that you came up with for the sole purpose of helping you win the internet argument. So it's a Calvinball rule. Besides which, as I said before, there do exist many hypotheses that we could be making and the Razor is useful in prunning many of them away before we have to waste our time formulating them and exploring them in detail. For example, all the hypotheses that start with "Suppose there was a third person in the car" need not be considered because "there was a third person in the car" is "multiplying entities without necessity", and so hypotheses that make such an assumption are less likely to be true than hypotheses that do not. The misunderstanding I'm pointing out and that I advised you to read wikipedia to clear up, is that you seem to understand the Razor as requiring at least two competing hypotheses to be fully formed to the point that they could be written down, perhaps even in a formal language. There is no such requirement. That's your Calvinball rule, made up on the spot and for the sole purpose of winning the internet argument. Or, perhaps, only for the purpose of forcing me to waste my time by considering all the unnecessary hypotheses that start with "suppose there was a third person in the car".