|
 |
 |
Razor Of Occam |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Info: Biography, Pictures, Discography of all CDs & DVDs |
|
| It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one.For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data.For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line.However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well.Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models.Like many Franciscans,
William was a minimalist in this life, idealizing a life of poverty, and like St.William, but because of his frequent usage of the principle,
his name has become indelibly attached to it.We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine
Being.Perfect God had created the Universe, both
the Universe and its components would be much simpler.William would not have approved.Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning.God we know from revelation.It is not needed for logic, epistemology or
metaphysics, so why assume this unnecessary plurality?Plato's Eidos (Forms) are
excess and unnecessary metaphysical and epistemological baggage.Materialists, on the other
hand, might be said to use the razor to eliminate minds altogether.Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony.In any case, Occam's
razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.Why posit pluralities unnecessarily?Occam was concerned with fewer assumptions, not less money.To the materialist, dualists
multiply pluralities unnecessarily.To von Daniken,
perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials.Today, we think of the principle of parsimony as a heuristic device.James Van Praagh, and
wishful thinking.Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.After William of Ockham.This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.Occam's razor is named after the deviser of the rule, English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (1285?Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.The negation of Occam's Razor would suggest that an arbitrarily complex explanation is just as good as the simplest one.Shop for books, music and more
Reference.Lexico Publishing Group, LLC.See Copyrights for details.In physics we use the razor to cut away metaphysical concepts.The canonical
example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that
ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the Ether.The principle has also been used to justify uncertainty in quantum mechanics.Heisenberg deduced his uncertainty principle from the quantum nature of light and the
effect of measurement.However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us
mortals.It can separate two theories that make the same predictions, but does not
rule out other theories that might make a different prediction.Empirical evidence
is also required and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against
it.It is ironic that while applying the
principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame,
Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on brownian motion which confirmed the
reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism.The moral
of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly."If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use
the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than
more complicated explanations.""The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be
correct."Now we are trying to choose between theories that make
different predictions.We are just looking for
guidance in developing a theory.Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment
and observation were unnecessary.It often happens
that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the
latter must take precedence."The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific
method.It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion.Dirac was very successful with his method.He constructed the
relativistic field equation for the electron and used it to predict the positron.But he was not suggesting that physics should be based on mathematical beauty alone.Thorburn, "Occam's razor",
Mind, 24, pp.Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.Occam was about philosophy, not technology, so it seems just plain false to interpret him that way.Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem seems not to be from WilliamOfOccam.But what if there is absolutely no obvious reason why one theory should be better?It is, in practice, interpreted like that; mine is a quixotic fight to distinguish two different principles.Yeah, but useful and true are deeply related.I'm not inclined to agree that the useful and the true are deeply related, but then I write simulations for a living.With your permission, I'd like to make an entry on SoftwareEtymology for the verb 'to prove', with the above in some form or another.The observation is not original with me, I'll hasten to add; I think I read it in StephenJayGould.Jacob Bronowski was very critical of the use of Occam's razor in science.It simplifies everything even if the supporting evidence is selective and complex.BTW, I am an atheist in the truest sense in that I have no belief and see no reason to have one and have no interest in disproving something for which I see no belief.Could you adjust the above for improved clarity and provide references?It requires variation to act upon, so needs a group of individuals.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.What a simple explanation all this is of such a simple concept.Would someone like to refactor this page with one simple explanation!!!Plurality should not be assumed without necessity.It had gone out of business and been replaced with some weird alternative office.My question is, is Starbucks a necessity?Every single one has been stamped out like the others and the patrons have to be a Starbucks person to fit in.It creates homogenization and sterilization of our society through consumerism and mass output of only sometimes necessary product.We thought we had a handle on physics with the 'ether theory' until we started looking at chaos and frequency dispersal of radiation of hot objects.The 'VIOLET CATASTROPHY' threw physics into a terrible state, as they realized their fundamental framework and basis for understanding was ALL WRONG.But our new understanding is, of course, completely perfect, and devoid of any such error.Science is not about being right, although it seems that way to most people, I would guess.When OccamsRazor is applied, it should be applied for the sole purpose of reducing complexity without losing the power of prediction.It seems now that wrongness or rightness are totally unimportant.Perhaps some other time.And it's a far less convoluted explanation than evolution.You cannot possibly believe in the convoluted and in some cases not wholly explicable theory of evolution if there's a simpler explanation.One would have to believe that the origin of decisions is in the brain, rather than the soul.Picking and choosing what is real and what is not is slightly more ...Dave Barry wrote this somewhat funny chain email, and Kurt Vonnegut gave this funny speech at the 1997 MIT commencement. |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
