Triggered by several recent discussions, I'd like to make the following position statement, though won't commit myself to long debate on it. ;-)
Occam's Razor, in its original form, goes like "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", and it is often stated as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best" or "when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" --- all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor I fully agree with all of the above statements. However, to me, there are two common misunderstandings associated with it in the context of AGI and philosophy of science. (1) To take this statement as self-evident or a stand-alone postulate To me, it is derived or implied by the insufficiency of resources. If a system has sufficient resources, it has no good reason to prefer a simpler theory. (2) To take it to mean "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer." This is a very different statement, which cannot be justified either analytically or empirically. When theory A is an approximation of theory B, usually the former is simpler than the latter, but less "correct" or "accurate", in terms of its relation with all available evidence. When we are short in resources and have a low demand on accuracy, we often prefer A over B, but it does not mean that by doing so we judge A as more correct than B. In summary, in choosing among alternative theories or conclusions, the preference for simplicity comes from shortage of resources, though simplicity and correctness are logically independent of each other. Pei ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
