On 2020-02-07 19:30:PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 7:22 AM TimTyler <t...@tt1.org
<mailto:t...@tt1.org>> wrote:
We don't know that "Occam's Razor drives physics". That's a
hypothesis, and
while we can't get out of our local region and escape from what
appear to be
our physical laws, it is an untestable one, and so is of little
interest.
If Occam's Razor were false, then by the no free lunch theorem we
could not know anything at all.
That assumes that Occam's razor represents the only possible
deviation from pure ignorance we know about. However,
that is fairly evidently not the case. In addition to a preference
for simplicty, the universe we observe is regular in space
and time - there appears to be a "uniformity of nature" where
there are a bunch of space/time invariants which we call:
physical laws. What has happened in the past is a guide to
the future, and what happens in one place is a guide to
what happens in other places. These regularities are
largely independent of Occam's razor. They permit
inductive inference to work.
Occam's razor represents one of many possible priors
that can be used with an inductive inference framework.
However, the uniformity of nature is why we can use
inductive inference at all.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9709eebb88dd292b-M019019811696f13ede1fd9e4
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
