This is so frustrating, because you're not seeing my point that, without a simpler hypotheses, it doesn't make any sense to dismiss hypotheses on the basis of t

This is so frustrating, because you're not seeing my point that, without a simpler hypotheses, it doesn't make any sense to dismiss hypotheses on the basis of the Razor alone. And, again, from what everyone understands of how cars and Teslas work, the initial description doesn't have enough elements to be a complete story. This is honestly what this whole conversation sounds like to me: Suppose we find a baby stuck high up in a tree. Me: "How do you suppose it got there? You: "No idea. All I know is that there's a baby in a tree. The baby got there." "Perhaps someone put him there?" "Occam's Razor states you shouldn't multiply entities unnecessarily. Another person would be another entity." "Ok... I mean, maybe there was a flood and-" "And maybe a flying pig put him there! What don't you get about Occam's Razor???" "So how do you think he got there?" "I have no idea." "Ok... So, I think that someone putting him there is the most likely -" "How do you not understand that Occam's Razor doesn't require comparisons!" "WTF?" At this point, I don't give a damn about what Mr Occam said. This nitpicking over the original formulation is completely irrelevant. All I've been trying to think from the beginning is what the most likely explanation is. A third person may well NOT be the most likely, or simplest explanation, but since you haven't provided one this conversation has been pretty useless. Occam's Razor says you shouldn't multiply entities unnecessarily. That last word, "unnecessarily," I realize in retrospect, is the one I've been focussing on this entire time, while you've been talking about "entities." If the initial story isn't sufficient -- and the fact that this would be the first Tesla ever to drive at high speed in a narrow cul-de-sac with no one in the driver's seat suggests it isn't -- them we MUST multiply entities. Bugs, trickery, GPS malfunction, whatever. We can then argue about which entities are reasonable and which aren't, if we like, but that's separate from the fact that we need to multiply them. (And, indeed, it is this word "unnecessarily" in the original formulation that does require simplER hypotheses, which is why that wikipedia article that you told me to read all the way through is chock-full of reference to "simpler" or "competing hypotheses." Without another explanation, you have no idea if the additional entities are necessary or not. All explanations require at least one "entity," except perhaps the Big Bang. The particulars of the case determine how many entities are necessary and sufficient.)