Post by David DeutschPost by hibbsa- A single methodology that initializes with the assumption the 'answer'
will be complex not simple (maybe assumes some sort of maximum or
infinite-in-the-limit complexity), but progressively approximates to the
simplest possible explanation?
The way I see it, this setup is legitimate in Occam terms, if the
legitimacy of an arbitrary occam-correct explanation is unaffected by
the origin of that explanation. For example, it could come by a random
guess, or a creative process....or indeed some sort of 'guiding' method.
Opinions appreciated.
Occam's razor is too vague for there to be a well-defined answer to that
question of whether that variant of it violates it or not.
But I think the variant has the same flaws as the original. One of them is
that the 'simplicity' or 'complexity' of an explanation itself depends on
how one judges explanations (i.e. aside from by their 'simplicity'). For
instance, a devoutly religious person might claim that their world view
conforms to Occam's razor because "God did it" is a very simple explanation
of the origin of things like the distinction between right and wrong, or the
laws of physics. An atheist would take the view that the 'simplicity' of the
God hypothesis is purely formal and that the hypothesis by itself isn't an
explanation of those things at all. So in the atheist's view, the religious
person is using complex, unacknowledged explanations and just *calling* them
a simple name, and so is violating Occam's razor.
Similarly, the religious person might also claim that their world view
conforms to the variant methodology, since although God is infinitely
simple, 'The Answer' to the mystery of His nature becomes ever more complex
as one understands it more, but is at each stage the simplest explanation.
And then the atheist might go on to say that the religious person's
increasingly complex ideas about 'The Answer' are merely more and more
complicated ways of evading the flaws in the original hypothesis, and
therefore are neither truly complex nor truly explanations. And therefore
that the religious person isn't conforming to the variant methodology
either.
This disagreement between the religious person and the atheist about what
does or doesn't violate Occam's razor is not being conducted according to
the rule of simplicity, nor according to the variant methodology, but by
different criteria. And in fact there is no substance to their dispute about
what explanation to adopt, other than those additional criteria. Simplicity
isn't playing a role at all.
-- David Deutsch
Hi DD - Your reply is much appreicated. If I could just explain that I
was totally aware that the concept of Good (hard-to-vary) explanations
totally eclipsed both what Occam probably wanted to accomplish, and
what if any extent his "Occam's Razar" accomplished it. I also accept
the basic criticism of Occam Razor most damningly vagueness.
However I believed that given the purpose I had in mind, my question
was still legitimate with all of the above being accepted. This is
because I only seek a placeholder counter-argument that anticipated
the reader would ditch my argument at a certain point based on a
reasonable estimate of the reader's perception of Occam's Razor and
the importance attached to it.... and the appearance to that reaer I
had just violated it.
Given the absense of any dependence on the explanatory/philosophical
status of Occam's Razor I see no inconsistency with your philosophy
(if allowing for some legitimate problem to be solved etc). The reason
I threw the question into FoR was because I drew on part of your
philosophy to construct my 'placeholder argument'. My hope is for
criticism/feedback of specifically that.
The part of your philosophy is the distinction drawn between the
creative or otherwise source/origin of explanations, and the final
explanation as presented for criticism. So stated, namely where an
explanation 'comes from' is neither a source of - or for - criticism
in context of the explanation itself.
Therefore, I reasoned, any perception on the part of the reader of
violation of Occam's Razor in my reasoning, can be refuted if the
component of reasoning in question refers only to creative or
otherwise 'source' or 'origin' by which comes about the explanation I
ultimately intend for that audience.
I guess my question is summarized do I correctly draw on the component
of your philosophy that distinguishes the 'source' (creative or
otherwise) of explanations from the product...that being the
explanation as presented for criticism?
p.s. the reason I didn't try to say all this to start with was because
I knew how unpromising anything about Occam would look and guessed
you'd not bother with anything longer than a couple of sentences :O)