|
Post by jayne on Oct 6, 2010 11:33:43 GMT
More examples of why Occam's Razor is unhelpful in this case. (Since I can't see the comic)
Question: What caused the ravine? Occam's Razor: Water erosion over a long time Actual Answer: Coyote used his claw to create it
Question: How was Annie saved from the ravine? Occam's Razor: The authorities at the school lowered ropes Actual Answer: A 12 year old girl built a hovercraft
Question: What happens when you press on the toe of a minotaur statue? Occam's Razor: A small amount of dust is removed. Actual Answer: You discover the time-share lair of Basil, the minotaur!
Have I mentioned, I love this comic! XD
|
|
caelo
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by caelo on Oct 6, 2010 13:18:56 GMT
Magic would for Kat be an event that completely ignored an axiom of physics but furthermore for her if she came upon a violation of one of those violation she would rework science so that it included the violation much like the Court does already. Simply the postulate of science is the supernatural does not exist because all things in nature are natural. Kat's persistence in this belief comes from experience such as finding out that shadow two was not a shadow at all but truly a very thin form of matter.
Besides when you make a gravity field generator, warp drive, at twelve with house hold items well your belief in the scientific method should be increased just slightly.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 6, 2010 14:23:18 GMT
Beware the blinker stoats!
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 6, 2010 14:25:49 GMT
Magic would for Kat be an event that completely ignored an axiom of physics but furthermore for her if she came upon a violation of one of those violation she would rework science so that it included the violation much like the Court does already. Simply the postulate of science is the supernatural does not exist because all things in nature are natural. Kat's persistence in this belief comes from experience such as finding out that shadow two was not a shadow at all but truly a very thin form of matter. Besides when you make a gravity field generator, warp drive, at twelve with house hold items well your belief in the scientific method should be increased just slightly. Can you imagine how hard it must be for her to figure how something works in this place? Usually you can eliminate what's not possible....
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 6, 2010 14:26:05 GMT
If everyone stopped misusing the words "Occam's razor", that would be triple sweet and super nice. In fact it'd be even more super nicer if people didn't use the words at all, as 95% of the time they're misusing them without knowing it.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 6, 2010 14:30:29 GMT
If everyone stopped misusing the words "Occam's razor", that would be triple sweet and super nice. In fact it'd be even more super nicer if people didn't use the words at all, as 95% of the time they're misusing them without knowing it. I absolutely agree to stop using it!
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 6, 2010 15:04:00 GMT
The principles of parsimony can be applied to anything... I just think that in this case, one has to do it in the context of the "local reality" of the fictional world.
Jayne is not mis-using the principle of parsimony by invoking the more popular term "Occam's Razor", so y'all don't get on her for that. There's nothing wrong with utilizing a term that most people are going to recognize as meaning "the explanation with the fewest assumptions is preferred". I think more people today know the meaning of "Occam's Razor" than they do the meaning of the word parsimony, so it's all good.
Having said that, though, I don't think one could say that parsimony, or Occam's Razor, would dictate that Annie wouldn't be facing a ghost. I get where you're going with that (ghosts don't exist, therefore it's not the simplest explanation) but -within the context of this fictional universe- they clearly do exist... a fact, incidentally, that can be proven with parsimony: There's a ghost now, so the simplest explanation is that ghosts exist.
But. Getting down to the actual discussion. It is more parsimonious to say that, rather than assuming that Jeanne has some sort of binding power over Annie, or binding power over the blinker stone, it is less assumptive to simply say that Annie couldn't get her blinker stone from Jeanne because she's got a freaking rapier in her other hand. I think that was the original point that was trying to be made, and the conversation sort of got convoluted by an academic aside about the proper and improper use of the term "Occam's Razor" which I think is sort of beside the point and now that I've hopefully cleared it up, we can get back to talking about ghosts and magic stones and astral travel.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 6, 2010 15:23:09 GMT
I did mention in my intro page, I'm easily distracted by shiny points of logic... Toss me a clever paradox and I'm entertained for hours! Ahem... yes but back to the conversation!
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 6, 2010 18:04:12 GMT
Or i managed to guess again and once it was her stone. Occam's Razor says a ~12 year old girl should never actually be faced with an enraged sword-wielding ghost Occam's Razor: Water erosion over a long time Actual Answer: Coyote used his claw to create it That's doing it the wrong way around: You introduced a new concept, and there's no need for it, since Coyote's mighty paw is already here. Methinks you did cut yourself. Occam's Razor is a sharp tool. It's important to know which end of it should not be grabbed. Some even happened to autodecapitate with it (solipsists). What I meant is given your forewarning that spying with a blinker stone is dangers we may assume that any being with sufficient psychic power can over power a blinker stones wielder. In that context it hardly could mean more than scrying via the stone not being a safe TV screen - the user is present, as in "detectable and vulnerable". Hmm... They eat Ethereal Giant Space Hamsters? Magic would for Kat be an event that completely ignored an axiom of physics Somewhere in this phrase i see an oxymoron.
|
|
|
Post by mudmaniac on Oct 6, 2010 18:32:45 GMT
Beware the blinker stoats! "Take the blinker stoat. Under extensive analysis it appears as nothing more than a simple mammal, but clearly it is much more."
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 6, 2010 21:58:10 GMT
More examples of why Occam's Razor is unhelpful in this case. (Since I can't see the comic) Question: What caused the ravine? Occam's Razor: Water erosion over a long time Actual Answer: Coyote used his claw to create it Actually, the available evidence - primarily the straightness and the relatively clean bottom of the ravine - supports the notion that the ravine was carved very quickly. There are some ravines like that (although not so deep and narrow) in the state of Washington, just east of the Cascade Mountains, that were carved in a week or so about 12,000 years ago. They are mostly pretty straight. The rock faces are extremely vertical and there is a relatively small amount of debris along the sides where erosion has broken off bits of the top edge and caused them to fall in. There is vastly more debris in the open areas just off their downhill (usually south) ends than in the ravines themselves. (There are, I think, a couple similar areas in eastern Europe and central Asia. Such events are unusual.) By contrast, the Grand Canyon meanders. A lot. And there's lots of loose rock, fallen from the sides, in the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Oct 8, 2010 10:17:06 GMT
"It's dangerous to go alone! Take this. And these band-aids."
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 8, 2010 10:26:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chickenbone on Oct 8, 2010 10:27:09 GMT
Occam's Razor only says that you should prefer the solution that requires the fewest hypotheses. Since erosion and Coyote are both established facts in GC, Occam wouldn't have a preference between the two explanations.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 8, 2010 10:48:10 GMT
Occam's Razor only says that you should prefer the solution that requires the fewest hypotheses. Since erosion and Coyote are both established facts in GC, Occam wouldn't have a preference between the two explanations. But before Coyote told us how he carved the ravine, we didn't know he could do that and there was no reason to think there was any supernatural properties to the ravine. So to answer: "What caused the ravine?" with only the information we had before Coyote told us what caused the ravine, we would have deduced natural causes. Occam's razor should only be used out of necessary. It doesn't prove one hypothesis is more correct than another, it simply allows for further examination. Example: At one point, there was no life on earth {Something happened*} Now there is much life on earth. h1: Life formed instantly on day 5. h2: Life formed after a complex chemical reaction h3: Life arrived via asteroids. Since we can't prove or disprove any of these, use occam's razor so that you can continue to examine the origins of life on earth, but it doesn't prove anything. It simply lets you continue working.
|
|
|
Post by chickenbone on Oct 8, 2010 11:07:05 GMT
Before Coyote told us that he had carved the ravine we knew that "There was a great division which saw the court and the wood separated".
I would infer from that, that the ravine was the result of deliberate and purposeful action by somebody, or maybe the result of a mass unconscious wish by a group of people living in a magical forest.
Re Occam's Razor, I agree. It is not a proof, just a rule of thumb.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 8, 2010 11:23:00 GMT
Before Coyote told us that he had carved the ravine we knew that "There was a great division which saw the court and the wood separated". I would infer from that, that the ravine was the result of deliberate and purposeful action by somebody, or maybe the result of a mass unconscious wish by a group of people living in a magical forest. Re Occam's Razor, I agree. It is not a proof, just a rule of thumb. When I read about that, I thought it meant more of a civil war, not a literal dividing of the land. The actual ravine reminds me of those cracks in glaciers where the ice stretches to the point where it just breaks like taffy. Not erosion, (or clawed) , more like pulled apart somehow.
|
|
|
Post by blinkerstoned on Oct 8, 2010 13:04:05 GMT
Before Coyote told us that he had carved the ravine we knew that "There was a great division which saw the court and the wood separated". I would infer from that, that the ravine was the result of deliberate and purposeful action by somebody, or maybe the result of a mass unconscious wish by a group of people living in a magical forest. Re Occam's Razor, I agree. It is not a proof, just a rule of thumb. When I read about that, I thought it meant more of a civil war, not a literal dividing of the land. The actual ravine reminds me of those cracks in glaciers where the ice stretches to the point where it just breaks like taffy. Not erosion, (or clawed) , more like pulled apart somehow. Coyote saw the division in their ranks and hearts,and split the earth,making the division a geographical one as well.
|
|
caelo
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by caelo on Apr 28, 2011 2:04:32 GMT
Magic would for Kat be an event that completely ignored an axiom of physics but furthermore for her if she came upon a violation of one of those violation she would rework science so that it included the violation much like the Court does already. Simply the postulate of science is the supernatural does not exist because all things in nature are natural. Kat's persistence in this belief comes from experience such as finding out that shadow two was not a shadow at all but truly a very thin form of matter. Besides when you make a gravity field generator, warp drive, at twelve with house hold items well your belief in the scientific method should be increased just slightly. Can you imagine how hard it must be for her to figure how something works in this place? Usually you can eliminate what's not possible.... Nothing except for breaking law zero through three of thermodynamics is impossible and we have yet to know if any of the characters have done this
|
|
|
Post by deviantlightning on Apr 28, 2011 2:30:09 GMT
Coyote saw the division in their ranks and hearts,and split the earth,making the division a geographical one as well. Meh, you can do better than stating the obvious. Jones has given us some testimony that Coyote does not lie, which we will take at face value. Furthermore, while it seems that Coyote does not actually lie, he does tend to omit important details. If I had to guess at what detail he's omitting, it's that Coyote probably created the ravine for personal gain. Knowing how politicians think, I'd say a good bet is that it consolidates his political influence over the forest. There's no better way to unify a people behind you than by having outside enemies. While Coyote is not a leader of an official government body, which is a human thing, what he says goes almost as a matter of course because "might makes right" in the Forest. He made the ravine without vote or council. Its a very elegant power grab.
|
|
caelo
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by caelo on Apr 28, 2011 2:44:17 GMT
Magic would for Kat be an event that completely ignored an axiom of physics Somewhere in this phrase i see an oxymoron. I think you mean paradox, but no such paradox exist. There must be a way to determine if an event is magic or not. My understanding is that an event that would be considers magic must some how break some axiomatic postulate of the base science physics. But I should go further there are no such event physics must conform to the nature of the universe not the other way around . That is if some how coyote spontaneously with out the use of ethereal or biological energy causes some object to move or become cold or hot then science must conform to this reality and propose the laws of thermodynamics hold except in the presence of Coyote in which case no such relation holds.
|
|
|
Post by deviantlightning on Apr 28, 2011 2:54:14 GMT
Somewhere in this phrase i see an oxymoron. I think you mean paradox, but no such paradox exist. There must be a way to determine if an event is magic or not. My understanding is that an event that would be considers magic must some how break some axiomatic postulate of the base science physics. But I should go further there are no such event physics must conform to the nature of the universe not the other way around . That is if some how coyote spontaneously with out the use of ethereal or biological energy causes some object to move or become cold or hot then science must conform to this reality and propose the laws of thermodynamics hold except in the presence of Coyote in which case no such relation holds. Magic is just a word. It's an attitude or a judgement about what is intrinsically knowable. This is why Kat refers to this attitude as poor work ethic. "Is magic real?" isn't actually a question. It's nonsense. People used to think chemistry and biology were magic. The current scientific knowledge will describe physical laws as we know them. Even the best theories are only accurate within the selected parameters of the phenomena in question. If Coyote does "violate" the laws, then all it says is that the laws do not apply; which simply means that reality has unexplored facets and laws which we do not know about yet. The process would merely be a non-thermodynamic process; but the laws are quite accurate for thermodynamic ones. And frankly, if it were true, it would be a very interesting subject for scientific inquiry. Calling what he does "magic" and then rolling belly-up in superstitious awe makes you no better than a caveman. It's also a large reason why the Court doesn't really have much patience with Forest envoys who try to throw their weight around. "Oh, you can command forces which are not known to us? Uh-huh. Good for you."
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Apr 28, 2011 17:38:23 GMT
Can you imagine how hard it must be for her to figure how something works in this place? Usually you can eliminate what's not possible.... Nothing except for breaking law zero through three of thermodynamics is impossible and we have yet to know if any of the characters have done this So, which law of thermodynamics explains how Diego's robot's move? If you were examining an actual clockwork robot, you'd be able to understand its workings fast enough. That same reasoning is not applicable to Diego's robots. That's what I was referring to in my comment.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Apr 28, 2011 18:41:37 GMT
Somewhere in this phrase i see an oxymoron. I think you mean paradox, but no such paradox exist. I don't know what you call paradox, but "an axiom of physics" is an oxymoron. Much like, e.g., "experimental algebra". So, which law of thermodynamics explains how Diego's robot's move? Laws of thermodynamics don't "explain" anything. Physical laws are just parts of an abstract model of the observable universe. As such, they only predict experimental results in their set of conditions. Which are never completely fulfilled in the real world (see "abstract"). Specifically, the condition you are trying to find contains the words "closed system". Which means they are useful only as long as the system being open isn't the whole point.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Apr 28, 2011 18:55:59 GMT
So, which law of thermodynamics explains how Diego's robot's move? Laws of thermodynamics don't "explain" anything. Physical laws are just parts of an abstract model of the observable universe. As such, they only predict experimental results in their set of conditions. Which are never completely fulfilled in the real world (see "abstract"). Specifically, the condition you are trying to find contains the words "closed system". Which means they are useful only as long as the system being open isn't the whole point. That was just me being snarky... I wouldn't use thermodynamics to discover how a machine works, specifically because I know nothing of thermodynamics. I would follow the logical progression of the parts. But Diego's robots don't have enough parts! I would have been just as disappointed as Kat was. I don't have access to robots but I love examining clocks. The more gears, the better.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Apr 28, 2011 19:02:46 GMT
"The Zeroth Law" is the 0th law because they started counting laws starting at zero? These are special people!
|
|
|
Post by jasmijn on Apr 28, 2011 23:24:07 GMT
Much like, e.g., "experimental algebra". Not to be confused with "extreme algebra", which isn't an oxymoron, just very awesome.
|
|