Occam's Razor

[PaulaJedi]

So which one do you believe is most likely true?

Most likely true? None of the above, if you follow Occams Razor. If time travel does turn out to be possible though, it's probably via an immutable single timeline, simply because it avoids the most problems.

I have issues with Occam's Razor. It assumes that the world is black and white. Why is the simplest answer usually the correct one?
Sometimes that is just a cop out. For instance, it may be simpler to call somebody crazy than to believe that time travel exists at all.
I was told that I may not understand Occam's Razor fully, though.

 

[Ayasano]

I have issues with Occam's Razor. It assumes that the world is black and white. Why is the simplest answer usually the correct one?
Sometimes that is just a cop out. For instance, it may be simpler to call somebody crazy than to believe that time travel exists at all.
I was told that I may not understand Occam's Razor fully, though.

Occam's Razer doesn't actually mean the simplest explanation. It means the explanation with the fewest assumptions. It sounds similar, which is why people tend to sum it up that way, but it's actually an important distinction.

A good example is the time travel equivalent of Fermi's Paradox. (If time travel exists, why are there no time travellers?) One explanation is that time travel doesn't exist, which means that explanation requires a single assumption. (Time travel being impossible) Another explanation might be that time travel does exist, but time travellers are required to keep themselves hidden from the public. That explanation requires two assumptions. (1. Time travel exists. 2. Time travellers must keep themselves hidden)

An assumption is anything that you don't know for certain to be true. So the existence of, say, gravity, wouldn't be counted as an assumption, because we know gravity exists. (A particular cause of gravity might be an assumption though, depending on the context)

Occam's Razer just says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is usually the right one. It's similar to how doctors in the West say "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." You check the explanation with the least assumptions first, and if you rule that out, you move on to explanations that require more assumptions.

Occam's Razer only works with independently verifiable things, things that can be tested. Applying it to anecdotes doesn't really work, because it's impossible to know what assumptions are being made because people rarely include every little detail in their anecdotes.

There was a video on here a while back that gave a good example. A lightshade was moving, seemingly of its own volition, and one person claimed it was a ghost. The other person reached down and switched off a floor fan beneath the lamp that was blowing on the lightshade. If the first person had told the anecdote, they would likely have not noticed the fan, and thus have given an incomplete description of the event, making it impossible to apply Occam's Razer.

 

[PaulaJedi]

Good explanation, Ayasano.

 

[Einstein]

Good explanation, Ayasano.

Oh! He's just like the cat. You've got to use the reward method to shut him up. Why didn't I think of that? Brilliant!

 

[Ayasano]

Good explanation, Ayasano.

Oh! He's just like the cat. You've got to use the reward method to shut him up. Why didn't I think of that? Brilliant!

Pfft. Unless you want to give me money for new PC parts, rewards won't shut me up.

 

[Ayasano]

Good explanation, Ayasano.

Thanks.

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

There was a video on here a while back that gave a good example. A lightshade was moving, seemingly of its own volition, and one person claimed it was a ghost. The other person reached down and switched off a floor fan beneath the lamp that was blowing on the lightshade. If the first person had told the anecdote, they would likely have not noticed the fan, and thus have given an incomplete description of the event, making it impossible to apply Occam's Razer.

One of my favorite videos:

 

[Ayasano]

There was a video on here a while back that gave a good example. A lightshade was moving, seemingly of its own volition, and one person claimed it was a ghost. The other person reached down and switched off a floor fan beneath the lamp that was blowing on the lightshade. If the first person had told the anecdote, they would likely have not noticed the fan, and thus have given an incomplete description of the event, making it impossible to apply Occam's Razer.

One of my favorite videos:

That's the one.