Complexity, deception and Occam

[roydop]

https://youtu.be/t3PFdqHDBSQ?si=c_FnxObk0G3a6uw-

[iambiguous]

More gobbledygook from this guy?

Or, instead, is he really, really on to something important here?

And, if there are those here who think that he is, please attempt to explain what any of this has to do with the reality of human social, political and economic interactions in a world bursting at the seams with any number moral and political conflagrations.

He starts out clearly frustrated. He is dealing with a world where nobody seems to understand just how profoundly important his own set of assumptions are. And, in my view, that may well be because all he really does is string a bunch of words together. Words defining and defending more words still.

Here it all seems to pertain to mathematics. But what on Earth does any of what he relates to us here have to do with human interactions as I understand them myself.

Will he go there? "Complexity, deception and Occam" in regard to human relationships at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy?

[Harbal]

More gobbledygook from this guy?

Or, instead, is he really, really on to something important here?

Does he look like the sort of man who is likely to be on to something important?

[iambiguous]

More gobbledygook from this guy?

Or, instead, is he really, really on to something important here?

Does he look like the sort of man who is likely to be on to something important?

More to point [mine], does he or does he not have a "condition"?

But, sure, I'm always willing to give folks here the benefit of the doubt. I'll ask them to bring their philosophical assumptions down to Earth. And, in particular, pertaining to my own main interest in philosophy...identity at the intersection of conflicting value judgments and political economy.

Roy is described at Twitter as an "Ex-Wildland firefighter. Spiritual mentor. Seer (i see things others do not). In possession of the most important message to ever be presented to humanity."

And, let's face it, there have been hundreds and hundreds of men and women down through the ages [and still today] who claimed [claim] to have either discovered or invented that.

[godelian]

https://youtu.be/t3PFdqHDBSQ?si=c_FnxObk0G3a6uw-

In the video, he says:

Numbers have no meaning to human consciousness ... These amazing mathematical proofs just relate to mathematics ... It doesn't relate to anything. It never related at all to the physical realm. The reason why mathematics has no meaning and reaches no conclusion is due to ...

Apparently, he has independently discovered elements from the formalist ontology of mathematics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism ... thematics)

A central idea of formalism is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality.

According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

You will only ever learn to appreciate mathematics if you come to grips with its true nature. Meaninglessness is a virtue in mathematics, and not a vice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(mathematics)

Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected ... In other words, to be abstract is to remove context and application.

The notion of "meaning" damages the purity of mathematics and must therefore be avoided at all cost. In mathematics, "meaningful" and "impure" are synonyms.

As a side effect of successfully removing meaning, mathematics becomes inherently useless.

All that is left, are empty but surprising structures. Therefore, the only redeeming quality of mathematics, is that it is ridiculous.

His lengthy complaint demonstrates that he lacks a sense of humor. He must learn to accept the true nature of mathematics. Only then he will find peace.

[Atla]

https://youtu.be/t3PFdqHDBSQ?si=c_FnxObk0G3a6uw-

Ah, Occam's razor:

1. All fundamental duality is an illusion, so consciousness can't be trapped 'in' anything because consciousness in the general sense is everything, all existence itself. And the human consciousness, the other meaning of the word, is simply part of that existence.
vs
2. Fundamental duality is real. The wheel/cycle of Samsara is the infinitely redundant positive feedback loop in which consciousness is trapped.

Occam's razor: 1 is probably the case, unless shown otherwise. 2 has unnecessary made up stuff. No message in maths about Samsara because there is no such Samsara.

There you go, fixed another one of your vids for you.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not sure whose version of Occam's Razor you read there, but it's a poor version.
The O.R. is NOT weighing in on the probability of different explanations based on the number of entities or premises.
It's not an ontological theory.
It's a methodological suggestion.
If we have two theories that both work, we should choose the theory that has less posited entities.
or
If we have two theories, both of which describe events/phenomena equally well, we should choose the more parsimonious one.

It's not suggesting, for example to neuroscientists or particle physicists: Hey, when you look into a phenomenon in your field, the best description is more likely to be a simpler one. That's a misunderstanding of the OR and especially the modern versions of it, such as those used in science.

And it would be bad advice to both those groups of researchers.

It's also a fairly common misunderstanding of the OR.

[Skepdick]

If we have two theories that both work, we should choose the theory that has less posited entities.

The rubber-band word that stretches as far as it needs to is the word "work". No utility-function is given here. No criterion for determining whether a theory "works" or not.
Has the assertion that the theory "works" been subjected to falsification?

Suppose you are a medical diagnostician and you have two viable diagnoses for your patient.
Both "work" in explaining the symptoms

Theory/diagnosis A attributes the symptoms to a single cause X.
Theory/diagnosis B attributes the symptoms to two causes: Y and Z.

By Occam's Razor he leans towards theory A and initiates treatment protocol for X. And it has no effect on the symptoms; whereas treating Y and X cures the patient.

That's why in the medical profession nobody pays attention to this principle. In practice it biases the diagnostician towards preferring the simplest explanations; instead of the explanations which are correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickam's_dictum

[phyllo]

If we have two theories that both work, we should choose the theory that has less posited entities.

The rubber-band word that stretches as far as it needs to is the word "work". No utility-function is given here. No criterion for determining whether a theory "works" or not.
Has the assertion that the theory "works" been subjected to falsification?

Suppose you are a medical diagnostician and you have two viable diagnoses for your patient.
Both "work" in explaining the symptoms

Theory/diagnosis A attributes the symptoms to a single cause X.
Theory/diagnosis B attributes the symptoms to two causes: Y and Z.

By Occam's Razor he leans towards theory A and initiates treatment protocol for X. And it has no effect on the symptoms; whereas treating Y and X cures the patient.

That's why in the medical profession nobody pays attention to this principle. In practice it biases the diagnostician towards preferring the simplest explanations; instead of the explanations which are correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickam's_dictum

If the symptoms can be attributes to either X or Y+Z, then one goes on to consider treatment is less harmful to the patient. It's very unlikely that all treatments are equal in every respect.

If treatment for X requires popping a few pills and treatment for X+Y requires surgery, then it makes sense to try treatment for X first.

If treatment for X doesn't work, then one reconsiders. Perhaps other treatments for X or reexamining the possibility that Y+Z is the source of the problem.

It's not a static problem. The doctor and patient get feedback from the treatment.

[Skepdick]

If the symptoms can be attributes to either X or Y+Z, then one goes on to consider treatment is less harmful to the patient. It's very unlikely that all treatments are equal in every respect.

What's the point of a harmless ineffective treatment?

If treatment for X requires popping a few pills and treatment for X+Y requires surgery, then it makes sense to try treatment for X first.

If treatment for X doesn't work, then one reconsiders. Perhaps other treatments for X or reexamining the possibility that Y+Z is the source of the problem.

It's not a static problem. The doctor and patient get feedback from the treatment.

You've literally manufactured the context which gives you the deciding factor. In practice all of these decisions are made ceteris paribus.

If you had information - you'd know how to resolve the tie-break.

The point is that Occam's razor is a tie-break resolution strategy which pre-supposes complete information. But it doesn't work with incomplete information.

In complex domains there's no lower or upper bound on the number of causal factors. That's part of the guess-work.

[Sculptor]

https://youtu.be/t3PFdqHDBSQ?si=c_FnxObk0G3a6uw-

OMG.
I thought you'd gone

[phyllo]

What's the point of a harmless ineffective treatment?

What???

It's a treatment shown to be effective on disease X. And treatments shown to be effective on Y and Z.

You've literally manufactured the context which gives you the deciding factor. In practice all of these decisions are made ceteris paribus.

If you had information - you'd know how to resolve the tie-break.

The point is that Occam's razor is a tie-break resolution strategy which pre-supposes complete information. But it doesn't work with incomplete information.

In complex domains there's no lower or upper bound on the number of causal factors. That's part of the guess-work.

All information is incomplete.

It's a tie break when theories fit the facts ... even incomplete facts.

Okay, your Occam's razor says that the patient has X. But you don't stop there because this isn't some abstract problem which has no impact on anybody. You're not done when you diagnose X. The treatment is part of the process. You can't just detach it.

[Impenitent]

he has no facial hair and shaved his head

Occam has done part of it anyway...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

I think there are instances when something like the OR can be applied. But in general I'm no fan of the OR.
That said, it is generally misunderstood as an ontological theory about the liklihood of explanations, even future ones. Like hey, when we look into this it's more likely the correct explanation will the be the simpler one.
Whatever I may think of the O.R. that's not the OR. That a confused trickle down version that is not the old O.R. or its modern counterparts. Though even professionals manage not to know this.

[Skepdick]

What???

What "What???"

It's a treatment shown to be effective on disease X. And treatments shown to be effective on Y and Z.

Yes, but if the actual disease is Y and Z and you administer treatment for X - the treatment would be ineffective.

All information is incomplete.

Hence the point.

It's a tie break when theories fit the facts ... even incomplete facts.

Hence the point.

Okay, your Occam's razor says that the patient has X. But you don't stop there because this isn't some abstract problem which has no impact on anybody. You're not done when you diagnose X. The treatment is part of the process. You can't just detach it.

The point is that Occam's razor is arbitrary!

A patient can have as many diseases as they damn well please. If you stop diagnosing when you find a parsimonious explanation which fits the symptoms you'll miss diagnoses with multiple causal factors.