5 ms·

I always get annoyed when people misinterpret Occam’s razor. It’s not that the simplest is more likely to be correct, it’s that you should prefer it, because i

by diddid 12d ago

I always get annoyed when people misinterpret Occam’s razor. It’s not that the simplest is more likely to be correct, it’s that you should prefer it, because it’s simple. It’s just like the Hopper quote. She said it’s better to ask for forgiveness during the fog of war, doing something you thought was right, not to do something you knew they were going to say no to and now you are trying to get away with something.

bnmik2 12d ago
Marcus Hutter formalized this in his AIXI work.
gowld 12d ago
That's not true. It's pretty clear that she meant "do something you knew they were going to say no to and now you are trying to get away with something." https://youtu.be/wHdHCoeUbU4?t=861s https://youtu.be/wHdHCoeUbU4?t=861s > So I want to tell something to all the young people here on many many occasions you'll find it is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission. You do it then when somebody comes after you and say are you supposed to do that, "oh gee I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that" ... so just remember it's frequently much easier to apologize than it is to get permission do it She goes on further, explaining how to deceive your superiors to manipulate them to get what you want.
- neutronicus 12d ago
  Damn no wonder she got a supercomputer named after her
- diddid 12d ago
  But I still don’t think that means eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and then apologize after because nobody would have given permission. That’s still about doing what you believe to be right. She even frames the fallout as “where you supposed to do that?” and not “you shouldn’t have done that”.
  - fragmede 12d ago
    Analogies only go so far, but I think eating the cookies in the cookie jar is the wrong one, because you're only feeding yourself with that one. If you're stealing flour from the baker to make a surprise cake for the whole troupe to enjoy, then you can apologize later, instead of asking first and ruining the surprise.
sillyfluke 12d ago
>It’s just like the Hopper quote. Not sure about Hopper, as I recall biographers of Lawrence of Arabia certainly made it seem like he was using the fog of war to do things he knew his superiors may object to. Regardless, even if its misinterpreted it still has a kernal of truth and separate utility than your version, that is: the people in the field closest to the action have an operational awareness that may result in better decisions in times of urgency.
beckhamc 12d ago
And sadly, in academia, complexity (opposite of Occam's razor) is what gets you published.
- captainbland 12d ago
  It's partly because of disagreement about what "complexity" and "simplicity" actually are. Many simple statements are in fact backed by massively complex, unstated assumptions. In attempting to deal with assumptions, scientists necessarily end up having to deal with the complexity involved in that. But the problem is if you don't engage with that, how do you know what is really more conformant with Occam's razor, as opposed to just satisfying what is readily expressed in common language? Likewise in software development a C developer will say abstractions are not simple, a java programmer will argue that dealing with low levels details is not simple. They're both kinda right but will resort to framings which back their world view.
srean 12d ago
I think you should get less annoyed. > It’s not that the simplest is more likely to be correct, it’s that you should prefer it, because it’s simple. I don't know what Occam meant, but if you accept the formalism of PAC learning, it is more likely to be correct https://web.archive.org/web/20170428225156/http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~hungngo/classes/2008/694/papers/occam.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170428225156/http://www.cse.bu... https://web.archive.org/web/20130412062821/http://cs.ecs.baylor.edu/~hamerly/courses/5325_10s/papers/learning_theory/haussler1988inductive-bias.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20130412062821/http://cs.ecs.bay...
- p-e-w 12d ago
  There are also various metaphysical theories that posit that the universe is algorithmically generated in some sense or the other, and from many of those theories it follows that simplicity is a fundamental feature of reality, which yields an even stronger version of Occam’s Razor.
  - jhanschoo 11d ago
    You don't need the onerous assumption that the universe is algorithmically generated, just that all ways to reason about and communicate intelligently for the purpose of making decisions is digital.
- ruszki 12d ago
  None of your links work for me.
  - srean 12d ago
    Ah! from my very dated and messy bibtex file comments. Wait, let me search for them on archive.org. Fixed.
- yorwba 12d ago
  The notion of "simplicity" can be completely arbitrary, though. It's enough that there are only finitely many hypotheses simpler than the best hypothesis (assuming there's such a thing as a best hypothesis). So as you eliminate hypotheses incompatible with the data, at some point you'll have eliminated all simpler hypotheses, and the simplest hypothesis left will also be the best hypothesis. If simpler hypotheses are also more likely to be correct, you get there faster, but it's not required.
arijun 12d ago
“You should prefer it, because it’s simple” is just restating Occam’s razor, not giving any explanation. “The simplest is more likely to be accurate” is a much better interpretation than yours. I think the most accessible example of Occam’s razor is fitting a line to some points; you can always use a high enough order polynomial to fit the seen points exactly, but a straight line is likely closer to representing the underlying distribution.
vrighter 11d ago
simpler is not the right word either. it's the one that makes the least assumptions, not the simplest. The simplest would be "god did it" pretty much everytime.
- 1718627440 11d ago
  > The simplest would be "god did it" pretty much everytime. An out-of universe entity, that is by definition too large to be understandable to anything in universe, is a lot, but not simple. Are you sure, you are not confusing easy and simple?
  - vrighter 10d ago
    It is simple. There aren't any explanations needed because "god is omnipotent" already covers everything. But its simplicity involves making MASSIVE assumptions. And the fact that Occam's razor explicitly says "fewest assumptions" and not "simple" is unchanged. Quantum mechanics is complicated. Assuming electrons orbit nuclei is simple. But quantum mechanics is backed by countless experiments, so needs less assumptions. If you have to choose between quantum mechanics' description of the atom, or the old, outdated, knowledge of an atom, Occam's Razor would say to choose quantum mechanics.
    - 1718627440 10d ago
      By that measure Quantum mechanics as explanation is simple, because "it's according to Quantum mechanics" already covers everything. However that is not what I think of when I hear "complexity of an explanation", I do not think of the complexity of the statement referring to the explanation, but of the complexity of the explanation itself, which is only referred to by the statement. Also I disagree with using the number of experiments needed to arrive at the conclusion as a measure for complexity. By that measure "things fall down" is complicated, when you have done a lot of experiments. I would rather take the number of "steps" needed to derive it from first principles once you know it. But also that sounds like what you said in your last sentence, so you are contradicting yourself?

by diddid 12d ago

bnmik2 12d ago

Marcus Hutter formalized this in his AIXI work.

gowld 12d ago

That's not true. It's pretty clear that she meant "do something you knew they were going to say no to and now you are trying to get away with something." https://youtu.be/wHdHCoeUbU4?t=861s https://youtu.be/wHdHCoeUbU4?t=861s > So I want to tell something to all the young people here on many many occasions you'll find it is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission. You do it then when somebody comes after you and say are you supposed to do that, "oh gee I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that" ... so just remember it's frequently much easier to apologize than it is to get permission do it She goes on further, explaining how to deceive your superiors to manipulate them to get what you want.

neutronicus 12d ago
Damn no wonder she got a supercomputer named after her
diddid 12d ago
But I still don’t think that means eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and then apologize after because nobody would have given permission. That’s still about doing what you believe to be right. She even frames the fallout as “where you supposed to do that?” and not “you shouldn’t have done that”.
- fragmede 12d ago
  Analogies only go so far, but I think eating the cookies in the cookie jar is the wrong one, because you're only feeding yourself with that one. If you're stealing flour from the baker to make a surprise cake for the whole troupe to enjoy, then you can apologize later, instead of asking first and ruining the surprise.

sillyfluke 12d ago

>It’s just like the Hopper quote. Not sure about Hopper, as I recall biographers of Lawrence of Arabia certainly made it seem like he was using the fog of war to do things he knew his superiors may object to. Regardless, even if its misinterpreted it still has a kernal of truth and separate utility than your version, that is: the people in the field closest to the action have an operational awareness that may result in better decisions in times of urgency.

beckhamc 12d ago

And sadly, in academia, complexity (opposite of Occam's razor) is what gets you published.

captainbland 12d ago
It's partly because of disagreement about what "complexity" and "simplicity" actually are. Many simple statements are in fact backed by massively complex, unstated assumptions. In attempting to deal with assumptions, scientists necessarily end up having to deal with the complexity involved in that. But the problem is if you don't engage with that, how do you know what is really more conformant with Occam's razor, as opposed to just satisfying what is readily expressed in common language? Likewise in software development a C developer will say abstractions are not simple, a java programmer will argue that dealing with low levels details is not simple. They're both kinda right but will resort to framings which back their world view.

srean 12d ago

I think you should get less annoyed. > It’s not that the simplest is more likely to be correct, it’s that you should prefer it, because it’s simple. I don't know what Occam meant, but if you accept the formalism of PAC learning, it is more likely to be correct https://web.archive.org/web/20170428225156/http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~hungngo/classes/2008/694/papers/occam.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170428225156/http://www.cse.bu... https://web.archive.org/web/20130412062821/http://cs.ecs.baylor.edu/~hamerly/courses/5325_10s/papers/learning_theory/haussler1988inductive-bias.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20130412062821/http://cs.ecs.bay...

p-e-w 12d ago
There are also various metaphysical theories that posit that the universe is algorithmically generated in some sense or the other, and from many of those theories it follows that simplicity is a fundamental feature of reality, which yields an even stronger version of Occam’s Razor.
- jhanschoo 11d ago
  You don't need the onerous assumption that the universe is algorithmically generated, just that all ways to reason about and communicate intelligently for the purpose of making decisions is digital.
ruszki 12d ago
None of your links work for me.
- srean 12d ago
  Ah! from my very dated and messy bibtex file comments. Wait, let me search for them on archive.org. Fixed.
yorwba 12d ago
The notion of "simplicity" can be completely arbitrary, though. It's enough that there are only finitely many hypotheses simpler than the best hypothesis (assuming there's such a thing as a best hypothesis). So as you eliminate hypotheses incompatible with the data, at some point you'll have eliminated all simpler hypotheses, and the simplest hypothesis left will also be the best hypothesis. If simpler hypotheses are also more likely to be correct, you get there faster, but it's not required.

arijun 12d ago

“You should prefer it, because it’s simple” is just restating Occam’s razor, not giving any explanation. “The simplest is more likely to be accurate” is a much better interpretation than yours. I think the most accessible example of Occam’s razor is fitting a line to some points; you can always use a high enough order polynomial to fit the seen points exactly, but a straight line is likely closer to representing the underlying distribution.

vrighter 11d ago

simpler is not the right word either. it's the one that makes the least assumptions, not the simplest. The simplest would be "god did it" pretty much everytime.

1718627440 11d ago
> The simplest would be "god did it" pretty much everytime. An out-of universe entity, that is by definition too large to be understandable to anything in universe, is a lot, but not simple. Are you sure, you are not confusing easy and simple?
- vrighter 10d ago
  It is simple. There aren't any explanations needed because "god is omnipotent" already covers everything. But its simplicity involves making MASSIVE assumptions. And the fact that Occam's razor explicitly says "fewest assumptions" and not "simple" is unchanged. Quantum mechanics is complicated. Assuming electrons orbit nuclei is simple. But quantum mechanics is backed by countless experiments, so needs less assumptions. If you have to choose between quantum mechanics' description of the atom, or the old, outdated, knowledge of an atom, Occam's Razor would say to choose quantum mechanics.
  - 1718627440 10d ago
    By that measure Quantum mechanics as explanation is simple, because "it's according to Quantum mechanics" already covers everything. However that is not what I think of when I hear "complexity of an explanation", I do not think of the complexity of the statement referring to the explanation, but of the complexity of the explanation itself, which is only referred to by the statement. Also I disagree with using the number of experiments needed to arrive at the conclusion as a measure for complexity. By that measure "things fall down" is complicated, when you have done a lot of experiments. I would rather take the number of "steps" needed to derive it from first principles once you know it. But also that sounds like what you said in your last sentence, so you are contradicting yourself?