La posverdad, la corrupción y la ambición desmedida nos pasarán factura. La novela nos estrella con la certeza de que no hay omisiones en dilemas cruciales sin consecuencias. La decencia y la esperanza son convidados de piedra, perfectos estorbos. Dos ciudades, el claustro y la urbe capitalina, en simbiosis alimentan móviles insanos y sombríos. Queda claro que, bajo la apariencia de normalidad, pululan las peores pasiones. El espeluznante final de la obra contrasta con la atmósfera contenida y alambicada del claustro. La aldea global de que hablaba Marshall McLuhan, se alimenta de los tóxicos de guerrillas burocráticas y académicas. A partir del plagio cometido en una tesis de maestría en una universidad ficticia de la cosmopolita ciudad de Panamá, nudo gordiano del relato, se ponen de manifiesto las pendencias de celos y envidia de dos universitarios que, subrepticiamente, se baten por el corazón de una condiscípula.

I have called this “ The principle of stability, inertia and recurrence“.La navaja de Ockham es una reflexión novelada sobre los valores y dilemas de la sociedad de hoy. We find simple causes because we are designed to recognize simple objects. The more complex a phenomenon, the more difficult we have to identify it. The additional argument I put forward is that we are programmed to perceive simple facts. The former is simply more intuitive.Īn additional argument for rejecting Ockham’s razor The former is simply more intuitive.Ĭonsidering that natural wet neurons are responsible for sentience (without further explanation) is no less complex than considering that information processing units -such as artificial neurons or computers - are responsible for sentience (without further explanation).

Ockham’s razor in the matter of sentienceĮven if it were true, many (or all) of the uses of Ockham’s razor applied to sentience (for example, to reject that computers or atoms are sentient) should be discarded because hypotheses are not being rejected because they are more complex, but for being less intuitive.īy way of analogy: considering that the Earth is flat (without further explanation) is no less complex than considering that the Earth is a sphere (without further explanation). If the sun seems to go around the Earth, it does. If things seem to be falling down, they are falling down. The idea that things attract each other is complicated. But on the other hand, if we have two good explanations, what reason is there to discard the most complex one, if not for practical considerations? Another good argument to defend it is that we can create infinite (bad) explanations or hypotheses if we allow ourselves to complicate them as much as we want. See: Ī good argument to defend the strong version of the razor is that the razor is precisely what science seems to be doing: making explanations compatible with evidence as simple as possible. Many arguments have been written for and against Ockham’s razor. We may ask ourselves: is Occam’s razor a consideration about the validity of theories, or a practical consideration?ġ) The strong Occam’s razor: Theories have more or less validity depending on their complexity: “Other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.”Ģ) The soft Occam’s razor: We choose the simplest simply for comfort: “Other things being equal, the practical thing is to choose the simplest explanation.” Interpretations of the meaning of Ockham’s razor

There are different interpretations of the meaning of Ockham’s razor and different evaluations of its validity. Ockham’s razor is sometimes considered a type of scientific evidence. Occam’s razor is usually summed up in a phrase such as “Other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one”. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Einstein?

La navaja de ockham