I am not sure if my understanding of Occam’s
Razor matches Eliezer Yudkowsky’s.
I understand it more as (to use a mechanical
analogy) “don’t add any more parts to a
machine than are needed to make it work
properly.”
This seems to fit Occam’s Razor if I take
it to be a guide, not a prediction or a law.
It does not say that the theory with the
fewest parts is more likely to be correct.
It just reminds us to take out anything
that is unnecessary.
If scientists have often found that theories
with more parts are less often correct, that
may further encourage us to look for and
test the simpler theories first. But it
does not tell us that they are more likely
to be correct only because they are simpler.
As soon as I try an aesthetic analogy
“strip the iPod down to its essential
features” (and make them easy to use),
I run into trouble. There is no
agreement on what the essential features
are or on what is easiest to use. (1)
Perhaps Occam works best with a certain type
of simplicity. F=MA being much simpler than
the Mac OS. Even if it did require a different
genius to discover it.
John
(1) I realize that in order to make the
mechanical analogy work we need to know what
the machine is before we apply Occam’s Razor.
Once we start improving the product (replacing
the stick shift with automatic transmission,
adding air conditioning) we are into feature
wars. It is not possible to know in advance
what customers will find essential.
But even then we would not want unnecessary
parts in the transmission or the air
conditioner.
Still, taking out all unnecessary parts won’t
guarantee that the machinery will work
properly any more than removing unnecessary
parts of a theory will guarantee the
correctness of the theory.
I am not sure if my understanding of Occam’s Razor matches Eliezer Yudkowsky’s.
I understand it more as (to use a mechanical analogy) “don’t add any more parts to a machine than are needed to make it work properly.”
This seems to fit Occam’s Razor if I take it to be a guide, not a prediction or a law. It does not say that the theory with the fewest parts is more likely to be correct. It just reminds us to take out anything that is unnecessary.
If scientists have often found that theories with more parts are less often correct, that may further encourage us to look for and test the simpler theories first. But it does not tell us that they are more likely to be correct only because they are simpler.
As soon as I try an aesthetic analogy “strip the iPod down to its essential features” (and make them easy to use), I run into trouble. There is no agreement on what the essential features are or on what is easiest to use. (1)
Perhaps Occam works best with a certain type of simplicity. F=MA being much simpler than the Mac OS. Even if it did require a different genius to discover it.
John
(1) I realize that in order to make the mechanical analogy work we need to know what the machine is before we apply Occam’s Razor. Once we start improving the product (replacing the stick shift with automatic transmission, adding air conditioning) we are into feature wars. It is not possible to know in advance what customers will find essential.
But even then we would not want unnecessary parts in the transmission or the air conditioner.
Still, taking out all unnecessary parts won’t guarantee that the machinery will work properly any more than removing unnecessary parts of a theory will guarantee the correctness of the theory.