[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

[Jef Allbright]

On 3/27/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> > I expect that you value Occam's Razor, which principle is at the core
> > of what I'm saying here.  William of Occam, along with mathematical
> > models such as maximum entropy, would strongly suggest that you
> > abstain from postulating entities that may exist without being
> > observed.
>
> ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean
> to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable
> structure?
>
> I feel that you are invoking the razor in vain. It is not intended to
> shave the number of entities but rather the number of ideas we have
> about entities.

--------------------------

It seems we have a subtle mix of issues here. Let me restore some
context that was deleted from your response:

Lee:
>>> Instead, the language of simple realism is vastly preferable, along
>>> with the realist postulate that things may exist without being observed.

Jef:
>> As a pragmatic realist, I am saying that we achieve best results by
>> considering something to exist only to the extent that it is observed,
>> and observation is always only indirect.

[Then my statement applying Occam's Razor.]
>> I expect that you value Occam's Razor, which principle is at the core
>> of what I'm saying here.  William of Occam, along with mathematical
>> models such as maximum entropy, would strongly suggest that you
>> abstain from postulating entities that may exist without being
>> observed.

[Rafal's response.]
> ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean
> to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable
> structure?
>
> I feel that you are invoking the razor in vain. It is not intended to
> shave the number of entities but rather the number of ideas we have
> about entities.

I think you have this reversed.  Occam's razor (and the mathematics
supporting it as a valid heuristic) advise us that it is preferable to
increase the complexity of a theory if by doing so we can reduce the
complexity of its ontology (number of entities seen to exist.)  The
standard example of this is the general theory of relativity which
reduces five entities: matter, energy, space, time and gravity, to
energy-matter and space-time with gravity disappearing as a separate
entity.[1]

Now, Lee's point was slightly different. He claimed that it is "vastly
preferable" to believe "the realist postulate that things may exist
without being observed."

Reading this I first rule out the overly simplistic and absurd
possibility that he thinks that I claim that objects cease to exist if
they are no longer observable, like the reported cognition of an
infant under four months old when an object is hidden using a box.  I
think he's arguing the "common sense", "simple realism" epistemic
viewpoint that one can damn well talk about the reality of things
without invoking the never ending chain of qualifications implied by
the necessity of an observer.

I try to share a more sophisticated epistemology (which may be
mistaken for denying reality) and support this firstly by declaring
that *all* observation is indirect (we have no simple direct unbiased
access to reality, because we're embedded in it) and secondly, that a
pragmatic subjective approach is supported by Ockhams's heuristic,
Bayes theorem, and mathematics of information theory such as the
maximum entropy approach to epistemic probability.

Knowing you as well as I (virtually) do, Rafal, I'm guessing you were
reacting to what you saw as a denial of reality tantamount to evil
along the lines of postmodernism or Richard Rorty, (whom I also find
irritating and distasteful, although I think their positions are often
caricaturized.)

I am a realist, but one who recognizes our intrinsically subjective
nature. My epistemology is also a pragmatic one because I claim
effective, but not logically provable belief in a consistent (but
expanding) reality.  I am not denying reality by any means, but
arguing that a more sophisticated approach is required, recognizing
our intrinsic subjectivity (the importance of context), if we are to
extrapolate much beyond our everyday theories of subjective
experience, self, personal identity, morality, and more.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted you in any significant
way.  I highly respect what I see as your keen (but slightly rigid and
reactionary) thinking.

- Jef

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor#Entities_and_explanations