Occam's Razor

nonconformist

Miserable
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
18,740
Location
Canterbury
There is a theory that is used by scientists (physicists mostly) that states:

"Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred"

Or more simply "The simplest explanation is usually the best."

How much do you hold this to be true?
I mean if you watch any episode of CSI, or read any Sherlock Holmes, this goes through the window.

Holmes once said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Opinions?
 
And there is Chatton's Anti-razor:

"If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on..."
 
nonconformist said:
There is a theory that is used by scientists (physicists mostly) that states:

"Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred"

Seeing as physicists also came up with string theory, I take it that they use a different definition of "simple" to the rest of humanity.
 
I find comparing physics and fiction a little confusing in the original question.
Do you mean in life in general as a philosofical point?
Yes, simple solutions are often best.
Leaves more time for other things.
 
@nonconformist

It's more a principle than a theory.

Occam's Razor states that no more is to be added to a theory once it explains the phenomenon. Naturally theories are falsibiable so Occam will not deliver the truth, but extra rigor and precision.
 
nonconformist said:
Or more simply "The simplest explanation is usually the best."

In physics this pithy adage has been proven true again and again. The simpler theories are always the best. In fact the best theories of physics are exceedingly simple in their insight and core precepts. { My personal favorite is GR. Where two key insights are all that is required to explain all of GR } What is usually not simple is the math required to apply those principles, but IMHO, they too are really simple and the usual observed difficulty is just the pervasive math phobia of the western world.

btw, string theory is also very simple in its precepts. Even the math is not that hard irrespective of what many would say. There is this general hype that has been created around the complexity of string theory. Don't know why.
 
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Einstein)
 
nonconformist said:
There is a theory that is used by scientists (physicists mostly) that states:

"Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred"

Or more simply "The simplest explanation is usually the best."

How much do you hold this to be true?
I found that this principle is so often true it could practically be a law.
I mean if you watch any episode of CSI, or read any Sherlock Holmes, this goes through the window.

Holmes once said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Opinions?
Fictions, particulary investigation fictions, where the whole story revolve around a mystery, are made complex on purpose, because we are supposed to confuse people in them.
What I noticed is that, in fact, overcomplicated stories have no credibility and feel quite a lot artificial. Best fictions usually involve a simple, realistic mystery, but simply (again :D) adds the REAL layers of confusion of the world (lack of informations, irrelevant hints, no particular people with the face of the bad guy, etc.).
 
What is Occam's Razor?
Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar; William of Occam. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity.

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor as in Leibniz' "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

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. Einstein's equations for transforming space-time are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognised that the Ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated.

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.

Stephen Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time:
"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

But uncertainty and the non-existence of the ether cannot be deduced from Occam's Razor alone. 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.
 
For a second I thought this was about the Spiral Architect song. v_v
 
punkbass2000 said:
You've got a simpler explanation?

Igloodude's String Theory: "It's all tied together somehow."
 
When the subject is science I find Occam's Razor pretty useful. When human beings and their emotions are involved, I prefer George Bernard Shaw...
"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is wrong."
 
I find Occam's razor useless for explaining processes, but very good for explaining people's motivations.
 
nonconformist said:
Holmes once said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Opinions?

Totally fallacious. Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains is merely the possible. To get to the truth, you need to eliminate most of the possible, as well as the impossible.

Of course, Conan Doyle knew this as well as you or I, but the Holmes doctrine works well in detective stories, where you can conveniently ignore or fail to mention any inconvenient possibilities other than the one you wish to be the final answer.
 
nonconformist said:
I mean if you watch any episode of CSI, or read any Sherlock Holmes, this goes through the window.

Welllll, no, not really: the detective comes up with a list of possible explanations for what he sees, and then collects further evidence to narrow it down. He will generally aim those investigations first at the avenues most likely to yield results, i.e., consider the simple alternatives and only resort to a convoluted one when he is forced.

In most good mysteries, the solution IS fairly simple - just non-obvious until you find the key clue.
 
Back
Top Bottom