Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!adelie!morgoth!dmb From: dmb@morgoth.UUCP (David M. Brown) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Layman's argument for Occam's razor Message-ID: <433@morgoth.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 22:17:34 EDT Article-I.D.: morgoth.433 Posted: Sat Aug 22 22:17:34 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 14:48:44 EDT Organization: Goldberg-Zoino and Assoc., Newton, MA Lines: 84 The purpose of a theory is to simplify. Seemingly disparate phenomena are unified, or integrated, into one. The purpose of this is similar to the need for modularity in programming - to hide details. If I am basing a theory upon some other theories, I want to use the ones which have less assumptions to check, preferably none! Therefore, Occam has given me good advice. But what, someone asks, if the simpler theory is not the "right" one? Perhaps you philosophers avoid this question. If so, then you need not consider Occam's Razor as anything more than advice. If not, then we are entering the realm of "Truth" (absolute, relative, whatever). One argument given recently was that simplicity has an aesthetic component, which touches our innate ability to directly sense Truth. I agree with this, but others were not convinced that this sense is accurate. Because we are talking about matters of the mind, it might be appropriate to discuss the origin of the mind. Basically, minds have evolved because they have survival value. The ability to generalize, to hide detail, and therefore to deduce, to look ahead, to imagine, has given us the ability to survive. I submit that if we had generalized, etc., in the wrong directions, we would have died (probably many did). Our process of generalization (ie, simplification) gave us survival value only because it was in the right direction. For example, it was absolutely correct to consider the leaves, branches, trunk and root as one entity, the tree. That was the *correct* simplification. As our thought processes encompassed more and more phenomena, and as we questioned things we previously took for granted, formal theories evolved, along with formal method(ologie)s. However, let's remember that these formalisms are based upon assumptions so innate that they are practically hard-wired. When a theory becomes too complex (at any one particular level), when it has loose ends, when it has jagged edges, when it is not simple, our aesthetical sense, derived from millions of years of being right, tells us it's wrong. Did you have a picture in your mind of 'loose ends', etc.? What is that a loose end of? What are those lines? I can't answer that exactly, but I think they are really *there*. Where? Somewhere you can only see/be with your mind. Somewhere where conception differs but little from perception. Another discussion in this newsgroup concerned Taoists. I think their symbol, the Yin-Yang, is relevant here. Among other things, the Yin-Yang is a symbol of the process of simplification, or generalization, of abstraction. The black and white represent specific details, the circle into which they combine represents the general. As such, it can be mapped into an upside-down letter Y: | <- simple | / \ / \ <- complex This is the basic structure of the hierarchy of dependencies and conclusions which comprise any theory. Multi-branched nodes can be represented as sets of binary branches. The universe, of course, isn't as simple as this. It's not a simple hierarchy, except locally. Note that the duality represented by the binary branching can ba mapped onto the duality between duality and oneness. The tree becomes a graph. Self-reference is encoded at the highest level. Does this have something to do with Godel? Anyway, I have strayed from my original intentions. Trust your mind. It got you this far. David Brown {harvard | ll-xn | mirror}!adelie!morgoth!dmb GZA, 320 Needham St., Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164 (617) 969-0050 WE CHALLENGE our traditions BECAUSE we believe TRUTH without questioning IS FALSE