[FRIAM] ockham's razor losing its edge?

[steve smith]

glen -
> I'm not sure if you're accidentally proving my point or purposefully 
> arguing that my point was too vapid. >8^D
>
> Do miter saws work better if 90° is really 90°? I suggest they work 
> the same regardless of calibration.
If you want to make a picture (or window) frame and your miter-saw is 
not calibrated you will achieve a parallelogram which if that is what 
you want...  and don't mind then cutting your glass to match the 
not-quite-square-ness.
> The calibration is the scheme ... the template through which the goo 
> extrudes. A good example of when accurate and precise calibration is 
> NOT better is the exquisite corpse.
As I (vaguely) understand exquisite corpse, you get to see the most 
trivial edge of the previous section for the explicit purpose *of* 
calibration?
> If you see my part before you contribute your part, the composite will 
> be less interesting.
I do believe EC works better if the "hipbone is connected to the 
thighbone" and "the shoulderbone is connected to the torsobone"? basic 
registration and alignment is still relevant, else an exquisite corpse 
becomes a mere triptych of random elements composed arbitrarily?  
Serendipity under minimal constraints?
> The same would be true for a simulated annealing task. If you don't 
> wiggle/heat it up in the right way, you won't get what you *want*. 
well, yes, there are general (I'm much more familiar with low-tech 
metallurgical contexts than fancy simulation, though not entirely 
unfamiliar) rules one must follow for the annealing to be effective.   
Heat up to a certain general temperature at a certain rate, then cool it 
slowly or quickly (quench) according to your desire (hardness, 
plasticity, edge-holding, etc)...   My limited understanding of use in 
simulation is essentially depth/breadth tradeoffs?   If you don't do 
enough or do too much at the wrong time, you fail to get the results you 
sought?
> In Chrissy Stroop's pluralism chart, this advice comes in the form of 
> "Treating shared values as more important than shared beliefs". What 
> matters most is your goal, not the imperfect tools you haphazardly 
> apply toward that goal.

I definitely agree with this...  and that is why I'm able to construct 
windows and picture frames that "work" even if I might have to "measure 
thrice, cut twice" or adjust other things to match whatever lame thing I 
actually did because I couldn't be bothered to "check square".    My 
goal is to make a suitable frame for a window or picture and if that 
involves multiple cuts, filling gaps with putty, whatever...

In the social context, I've been a victim of "best intentions" quite 
often in my life... it bothered me a lot more when I was young because I 
was somehow more "results oriented" or had less perspective.  I now (I 
think following your example?) can acknowledge "I'm glad you did that 
thing for the reasons you did even if it turned out badly for me or 
someone else who you were trying to help".

When I vote (governmental or board or stock ownership or "what do we 
want on our pizza?") I do it more according "how will this shape the 
world I want to live in?" rather than "what specific short-term, 
localized gain can I obtain from this?"

Or did I miss your points (again, some more)?

- Steve

>
>
> On 1/31/25 9:10 AM, steve smith wrote:
>>  I'm bad at this, but it really does help to calibrate a tool before 
>> using it (e.g. miter saws work much better if the indicator of 90deg 
>> REALLY IS 90deg, easy to check easyish to adjust, worth it).   But to 
>> support the idea of parsimony, realizing that rather than getting out 
>> a fancy square, one can simply cut a piece of scrap and flip it over 
>> and see if it aligns with the blade!
>>