Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Computer scientists have provided a distinct justification of Occam’s Razor. Using the probably approximately correct framework, they provide a theorem that they claim demonstrates that we should favor simpler hypotheses. The argument relies on a philosophical interpretation of the theorem. I argue that the standard interpretation of the result in the literature is misguided and that a better reading does not, in fact, support Occam’s Razor at all. To this end, I state and prove a very similar theorem that, if interpreted the same way, would justify the contradictory Anti-Occam’s Razor—the principle that we should favor more complex hypotheses.
I want to thank Jan-Willem Romeijn and Tom F. Sterkenburg for invaluable early discussions and feedback. I also want to thank Simon Huttegger, Brian Skyrms, Darcy Otto, Aydin Mohseni, Gerard Rothfus, Saira Khan, Bruce Rushing, Tom Colclough, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts.