<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">On Jan 20, 2023, at 4:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000">It seems that what you wrote illustrates the principle. More complex theories naturally have more assumptions which can go wrong. But - there are no simple theories which can explain complex phenomena. bill w</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Oh? I would think there are simple algorithms which yield very complex patterns. And many physically complex patterns can be explained by a few simple laws. For instance, the chaotic pendulum can be explained using the same classical laws as the usual periodic simple pendulum. In fact, Poincaré pioneered this whole area of physics — showing how very simple physical laws explained complicate systems.</div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Darwinian evolution is another, less mathematical example. Darwin uses a few simple assumptions to explain biological diversity and change, very complicated phenomena merely using descent with modification plus differential reproductive success. If that isn’t a simple, rather elegant theory explaining something extremely complicated, I don’t what would be.</div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Regards,</div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dan</div><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:28 PM Gadersd via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">In the limit simpler theories are more likely to be correct than more complex theories. Algorithmic information theory has codified this principle in rigorous mathematics. There is a proof that the preference of simpler theories, in this case measured in the number of bits defining computer programs, leads to a guarantee of being correct in the long run. Additionally it is proven that this preference in algorithmic information theory leads to correctness more rapidly than other method. A preference for more complex theories on the other hand has no such guarantee.<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 20, 2023, at 5:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:large">Just reading An Immense World, by Ed Jong (author of I Contain Multitudes). Surprisingly, he makes a common error: he wrote that Occam's Razor meant that the simplest explanation is the best. Totally wrong. It is as likely to be wrong as any other explanation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:large">It means that the simplest explanation is preferred because it involves the fewest assumptions (entities, Occam wrote), and as we know, assumptions can be wrong.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:large">Agree? bill w</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></body></html>