The problem with Occam's Razor

Is the simplest theory necessarily the correct one?

[TheMinecraftACMan]

The best way I've hear Occam's razor put is:
"Given two competing theories, which in all tested cases produce identical results, the theory that makes the fewest assumptions ought to be preferred."
It's a caution against making more assumptions than you absolutely have to.

[flyingbicycles]

A lot of people use Occam’s Razor like it’s a natural law instead of a philosophical tool. Thanks for the concise explanation!

[duskpede]

"the simplest solution is usually true provided it isn't wrong"

[ThreeEarRabbit]

Simple and concise are two very different concepts.

[grayaj]

OH THANK YOU. I am tired of having this argument with people who cling to "the simplest answer is the correct one" without understanding at all what Occam used it for.

Occam is referring to the law of parsimony, which simply states that when explaining something, your explanation must not include things that aren't demanded by the information available. "Complexity must not be suggested without necessity".

it says absolutely nothing about choosing between two competing models, except that when forced to choose, the one with fewer assumptions should be preferred.

But yeah. Compare Democritus' model of the atom to Rutherford's or Bohr's and tell me which one is more likely to be true.

[justinanderson]

I don't think Occoms Razor was meant to be a fix all solution for everything...

[matszz]

Thank you. Finally someone explained this. It's also worth noting that while it has been adopted by scientists as this rule of thumb. Wilhelm of Ockham was born many centuries before modern science was born, this was not intended to be a scientific tool. It's was an epistomological point, to use more precise language.

[TheLifeOfKane]

Omg THANK YOU for being the only voice that doesnt misunderstand Occum's Razor.
Its a tool to het through many experiments by testing the easiest ones first. Observanle data is the key, simplicity is just to knock out hypotheses faster

[sublucid]

I consider Hickham's Dictum (from diagnostic medicine) to be the most succinct refutation of Occam's Razor:
"The patient can have as many diseases as he damn well pleases!"

[factChecker]

Nature doesn't care how easy it is for humans to understand it. If the evidence doesn't fit a simple theory, a more complicated theory that fits the data has to be preferred.

[catalyst]

"The simplest theory of all, is that the universe does not exist." Not really, because that would require numerous, complex, and unjustified assumptions, and thus would violate the Razor.

[ronrice]

Occam's Razor states: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." There is no "problem" with that. The complications of Einstein's theory in comparison to Newton's were *necessary* to account fully for the behavior of gravity. Newton's theory was simpler, but Einstein's was better -- even by the standard of Occam's Razor.

[tkb]

The problem is the monthly charge. Next thing you know you have 10 packs of refill razors.

[Raykkie]

The idea that the universe doesn't exist is a form of Metaphysical Nihilism.
It seems like a strange idea, but it makes sense once you dive into the implications of subjectivism if you can describe everything mathematically. Which leads to a similar result to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem Theorems: Every system can only exist *within a specific context*.
Go the other way around and you can get the following idea "Any system can exists given a specific context".
Given the right context, the electrical charges in a silicon slate are a computer or the ions moving around in and out of neurons are a human consciousness.

Given the right context, a mathematical system can be the universe.
It's kinda like Full-Blooded Platonism.

Some might think "But what's the use for it?" (which if we only did math because it was immediately useful we'd probably still be in the iron age). But there might be useful implications *assuming it is right*. We might find a way to circumvent the laws of nature, or even rewrite around them, given enough knowledge of the universe inner working.

[SuryaYadav-kpqv]

I don't understand how your videos have not good response

[neurokodama]

The original latin motto also is more accurate than its modern versions: ens non sunt multiplicanda præter necessitatem - "do not multiply your entities before needed"

[frost]

Occam’s razor sucks because it specifically and quickly puts the brakes on any further inquiry into an important subject by simply saying what they think is the simplest and then shutting down anything else. That’s why there’s an Occam’s razor fallacy, which states “the simplest explanation is not all ways the correct or true one

[isaacbruner]

Occam's Razor as it is usually understood and applied says that, of two competing explanations for which there is equal evidence, the one that requires fewer assumptions is likely correct. This is not in conflict with science in any way and relativity does not contradict it. Relativity was based on evidence that was not available to Newton, and anyways Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was never a theory to begin with. Newton explained how gravity works, while Einstein explained why gravity works.

[alexmiller]

There was a comment on another video that said Relativity is the simplest explanation because it explains more than Newtonian Gravity. Therefore the statement is still true in this example.

[einsteinwasgod]

Occams razor is about minimizing the set of axioms we have to pressume.