Can Occam's Razor be derived from the principle of the null hypothesis?

And, along the way, would the concept of "symmetry" (in the scientific sense) arise?

I'm not sure, and I'm trying to sharpen my thoughts on the subject.

Suppose you have never seen anything before.  (You were born completely blind, and are about to undergo an operation which will give you normal eyesight, or some such conceit.)

You don't know what color anything is.  There's a leaf in front of you.  Should you assume that it is green?  (Assume that, for some reason, no one has ever told you what color leaves are, etc..)  No, at least not if you are being scientific.   In the absence of any evidence, you should adopt the null hypothesis.  What exactly is the null hypothesis, here?  "The leaf is not green"?  Perhaps more accurately, "The leaf could be any and every color, or no color; we must not make any prejudicial assumptions about any color."  Or perhaps even this is imprecise.  Perhaps, as of yet, we can say nothing about color, at least not with any certainty.  (One might, for instance, say, "I imagine that the leaf is purple."  But then again, can you even say that, meaningfully?  Remember, you have never experienced anything purple, and so it's unclear what you are expressing when you even use the word "purple".)

Now you open your eyes, and for the first time, see.  The first thing you see is a leaf, and it turns out to be green.  (I suppose we must assume that there is someone around to tell you that the color you are now experiencing is called "green" - a matter of no small import, and, I'll admit, difficult to harmonize into the remainder of my thesis.)

Now, in that instant, before you look at anything else, what should the principle of the null hypothesis tell you?  To my mind (and I am willing and interested to learn if someone has a reason for opposing this), it implies that you should assume that everything in the universe is green.  Or at least I think this is a possibility worth considering.

So you look up at the sky, and see that it is not green.  It is blue.  Now, I think, you should assume, unless provided with contrary evidence, that everything in the universe is either green or blue.  And so on - after looking at more and more objects, you come to realize that there are more and more colors.  How many colors?  

Should you now assume that everything in the universe is a color that you have previously seen?  Or, after having been exposed to more and more colors, should you begin to assume, at some point, that there are probably colors you've never experienced? At what point should you begin assuming that there are experiences (in this case, colors) that you've never had?  Once you experienced a second color (blue), should that have been the first clue that there might be other colors out there you've never seen?  Should you actively go out and look for them?  At what point should you stop assuming that there are colors you've never seen?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

The American Ontology

Image
I subscribe to the American Ontology, which can be stated as follows: An entity can be said to exist, if and only if, and to the extent that, it is, or pertains to, a celebrity. Places, material objects, and animals exist to the extent that they are the places, material objects, and animals of celebrities.  Events don’t happen unless they happen to celebrities.  Entire regions of the world don’t exist, because they don’t contain celebrities.  The American Ontology can be seen as a logical consequence of Berkeley’s famous esse est percipi : to be is to be seen.  And therefore, the more seen something is, the more it is .  Everyone else can be dismantled, and used for spare parts. In turn, the American Ontology has its own logical consequences: celebrities only exist because of their relation to other celebrities.  For instance: Jordyn Woods is famous (i.e. existent) because she was living with Kylie Jenner.  Kylie Jenner is famous because she is the sister of Kendall Jenner. 
Read more