Simple but logical expanations have legs

[pantheory]

More complicated models will always be written in Ptolemaic epicycles, hence complicated explanations. The Ptolemaic model met the requirements of the church at the time concerning the Earth being the center of the universe. A simpler answer was that the sun was the center of a stellar system of planets, where the Earth was only one of the planets. This new model, only upon strong evidence, ended the idea that the church must always be the ultimate authority.

 

Today I think we are faced with a similar dilemma. The 20th century ushered in many new theoretical models like Quantum Theory, Einstein's theories of relativity,

The Big Bang model, etc. all of which have originated as, or evolved into complicated models involving aspects of theory similar, in my opinion, to Ptolemaic epicycles. The meaning of this is that many aspects of these theories lack in logic and as a whole have become complicated beyond what is likely to be valid. The concept involved is this: The more unprovable aspects and assertions that a model has, the more likely it is that the model is wrong.

.

Edited July 18, 2011 by pantheory

[Marqq]

Occam's razor-- Doesn't always lead to truth, but definitely is a good rule of probability. But considering science never proves anything, and by protocol follows the path of greatest probability, Occam's razor definitely has a place here.

[ajb]

Occam's razor really only states that "given two theories that equally well model nature, then you should favour the theory for which you have to make the least assumptions about non-observed entities".

 

So, for example following Occam's razor would mean that supersymmetry would be immediately discarded. We have no tangible physical evidence for supersymmetry today. However, supersymmetry has many mathematical properties that make it worth studying and these then pose the question "why does nature not exploit supersymmetry?".

 

String theory also would be disregarded, currently string theory does not model the real world well, but again there are many non-trivial mathematical reasons why string theory should be studied.

 

The point being if one were to follow Occam's razor to the letter then I expect that progress in physics would be slowed down. One has to allow a bit of imagination in physics. This is particularly true when probing the frontiers of knowledge.

 

That said, as a general philosophy applied correctly Occam's razor can give you hints at what models are "sensible". But it is in no way a law of nature; there is no reason why nature should be "simple" or even "comprehensible" to mankind. One cannot for sure use Occam's razor to pooh-pooh modern physics.

[pantheory]

Occam's razor-- Doesn't always lead to truth, but definitely is a good rule of probability. But considering science never proves anything, and by protocol follows the path of greatest probability, Occam's razor definitely has a place here.

As you know, there was a 50 year period where the "the Earth is round" was just a theory, about the time of Columbus the fact was not established. Science can prove theories, the evidence simply must be strong enough to squelch all other possibilities. A few of today's theories I believe fall into this category. "Natural selection" has a mountain of evidence to support it. Even though it is known there are other mechanisms of speciation, natural selection someday, I believe, will be known to be fact. Another example is plate tectonics. This is still a theory but there also is a mountain of info to support it. The reasons for it are still speculative in nature, but the model of separate moving plates of the Earth's crust will someday be considered fact. The point is that I believe the best of theories will someday be proved.

 

Occam's razor is an excellent guide, "the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal." The question always boils down to "all else being equal." This is where disagreement is certain

.

Edited July 18, 2011 by pantheory

[ajb]

Occam's razor is an excellent guide, "the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal." The question always boils down to "all else being equal."

 

Also it might not be obvious what theory is "simpler". For example, is a conceptionally clear theory that is very hard to calculate with simpler or not than a theory that is conceptionally difficult but easy to calculate with?

[pantheory]

Occam's razor really only states that "given two theories that equally well model nature, then you should favour the theory for which you have to make the least assumptions about non-observed entities".

 

So, for example following Occam's razor would mean that supersymmetry would be immediately discarded. We have no tangible physical evidence for supersymmetry today. However, supersymmetry has many mathematical properties that make it worth studying and these then pose the question "why does nature not exploit supersymmetry?".

Most humans would agree that symmetry is related to beauty, but humans probably have a different understanding of beauty than other animals. I highly respect Dirac's work but personally think that mathematical "beauty" should never have preference over simplicity, all else being equal. Particle physics as a whole is fraught with insurmountable problems, in my opinion, super-symmetry was maybe worth consideration but the foundations of the model are tenuous at best.

 

String theory also would be disregarded, currently string theory does not model the real world well, but again there are many non-trivial mathematical reasons why string theory should be studied.

String theory was a great precept in that strings could be the foundation of reality instead of particles. After that it's all down hill . There is no need for any more than 3 dimensions plus time, in my opinion.

 

The point being if one were to follow Occam's razor to the letter then I expect that progress in physics would be slowed down. One has to allow a bit of imagination in physics. This is particularly true when probing the frontiers of knowledge. That said, as a general philosophy applied correctly Occam's razor can give you hints at what models are "sensible". But it is in no way a law of nature;

Simplicity and logic should not be the ultimate tests or considerations, but I believe they should be primary yard sticks, which I think presently they are not. Most instead seem to prefer modifications of standard models rather than giving the slightest thought to alternative explanations/ models contrary to the standard model, again reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles.

 

....there is no reason why nature should be "simple" or even "comprehensible" to mankind. One cannot for sure use Occam's razor to pooh-pooh modern physics.

I agree that Occam's Razor should not be the ultimate test, but logic and simplicity should be important considerations. Unfortunately "logic" is considered today, in my opinion, with about the same regard as it was during the times when the church "explained" what was "true." Logic has little sway in science today, to the discredit of those that make such illogical proposals, Quantum Theory being the prime example. Ultimately, I believe, everything that exists has a logical basis in every respect -- granted it could never be logical to everyone. Accordingly the only reason a theory lacks reason is because its practitioners cannot make sense of the related observations. But in my opinion, the logic is never complicated, it is only that science no longer uses logic as the quintessential tool which I think that it should.

 

Also it might not be obvious what theory is "simpler". For example, is a conceptionally clear theory that is very hard to calculate with simpler or not than a theory that is conceptionally difficult but easy to calculate with?

I agree that you are making a good point. In my opinion the physics/ mathematics of a model are just an analog which at best might approach reality, but never could be a mirror of it. Accordingly the math should never rule logic. If more complicated math is required, so be it. If simpler math generally serves the purpose, like the inverse square law for instance, then it should always be used unless there is some reason/ logic for increased accuracy.

.

Edited July 19, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Simple but logical explanations have legs.

 

More complicated models will always be written in Ptolemaic epicycles, hence complicated explanations. The Ptolemaic model met the requirements of the church at the time concerning the Earth being the center of the universe. A simpler answer was that the sun was the center of a stellar system of planets, where the Earth was only one of the planets. This new model, only upon strong evidence, ended the idea that the church must always be the ultimate authority.

 

Today I think we are faced with a similar dilemma. The 20th century ushered in many new theoretical models like Quantum Theory, Einstein's theories of relativity, The Big Bang model, etc. All of which originated as, or evolved into complicated models involving aspects of theory similar, in my opinion, to Ptolemaic epicycles. The meaning of this is that many aspects of these theories lack in logic and as a whole have become complicated beyond what is likely to be valid. The concept involved is this: The more unprovable aspects and assertions that a model has, the more likely it is that the model is wrong.

A prime example of "Simple but logical" theories I believe were Newton's theories. Although Newton often did not explain the logic behind his assertions and formulations, considering today's physics as a whole, Newton's proposals seemed to always have a strong logical basis that today's models seem to lack. Most of Newton's models have survived to the present day.

,

.

Edited July 19, 2011 by pantheory

[mississippichem]

Quantum theory doesn't seem logical at all to those who don't understand the mathematics. The emphasis should be on whether or not a theory makes correct and testable predictions about reality. Quantum mechanics has given correct predictions many many many times, so what is the problem pantheory?

 

I also do not understand the distinction between mathematics and logic. Math is nothing but the purest logic un-tainted by the semantics and word ambiguity of regular language.

[pantheory]

Quantum theory doesn't seem logical at all to those who don't understand the mathematics. The emphasis should be on whether or not a theory makes correct and testable predictions about reality. Quantum mechanics has given correct predictions many many many times, so what is the problem pantheory?

The mathematics of QM is based upon a long history of observation. There is little question that it is the best thing going concerning its predictive ability. Quantum Theory, on the other hand, are the verbal explanations as to why QM predictions are valid. This theory is where all the "lack of logic" exists. Quantum Theory could be almost entirely wrong and totally replaced, while QM could remain almost totally intact concerning its mathematics. All that would accordingly change would be the explanations.

 

Here is an example. Quantum Theory, concerning the double slit experiment using photons, proposes that a single photon particle goes through both slits and then interferes with itself. Is this logical? Einstein, De Broglie, Shroedinger and many others thought this was not only wrong, but a ridiculous interpretation.

 

If the background field (the ZPF) includes any particulate or string-like entities such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, field strings, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. , then as the photon moves through the field it could produce waves of these particulates in the background field which could go through both slits, while the photon itself would go through only one slit. The waves could accordingly interfere with the photon's progress producing the interference patterns we see. This is extremely simple to understand but since we have no proof of the existence of such particulates such as dark matter, etc. we have chosen a "ridiculous" explanation. All of Quantum Theory, in my opinion, consists of little more than many such ridiculous interpretations/ explanations.

 

I also do not understand the distinction between mathematics and logic. Math is nothing but the purest logic un-tainted by the semantics and word ambiguity of regular language.

Mathematical logic is its own system. The primary requirement is internal consistency. This logic does not require formulations in physics to provide justification. Both logical systems are based upon a number of quite different rules.

.

Edited July 19, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Occam's razor (...) But it is in no way a law of nature; there is no reason why nature should be "simple" or even "comprehensible" to mankind. (...)

 

I wonder.

The principle of least action is beautifully simple and ressembles very much to the sharp edge of Occam's razor.

 

(...) Quantum Theory could be almost entirely wrong and totally replaced, while QM could remain almost totally intact concerning its mathematics. All that would accordingly change would be the explanations. (...)

 

I agree 1000%.

Edited July 19, 2011 by michel123456

[pantheory]

I wonder.

The principle of least action is beautifully simple and resembles very much to the sharp edge of Occam's razor.

 

I agree 1000%.

 

Thanks michel

Edited July 19, 2011 by pantheory

[36grit]

Logical explanations not only grow legs but they also expand as questions get answered, puzzles become clear. As questions get answered more arise and in time things get complicated again.

I think when wierd concepts, like relativity, become accepted and understood they become more and more elementry. It's a cycle of knowledge and understanding thresholds. Knowledge is a plane of expansion that is older than physics. It is inevitable that philosophy and physics will merge as our understanding becomes more and more complete. When we know everything we will be able to do anything. Does the knowledge exist to create a universe?

 

 

Here we are

 

 

[Ophiolite]

As you know, there was a 50 year period where the "the Earth is round" was just a theory, about the time of Columbus the fact was not established.

I don't know this and no one who has studied the matter knows this. The roundness of the globe was known to the Greeks a millenium or so before Columbus. Any learned person in Europe at the time of Columbus and several hundred years before was well aware that the Earth was round. You are parroting nonsense that circulates among those whose education is acquired by word of mouth.

 

Science can prove theories, the evidence simply must be strong enough to squelch all other possibilities.

You are mistaken. Science can disprove theories, but it cannot prove them. Some theories become so well corroborated that they are accepted as 'fact', but it would take only a single observation to falsify them, so that 'factual' status is always provisional.

 

I recommend that until and unless you understand that basic characteristic of scientific theory you would be as well not to comment on the status of current theories. It might make you look foolish.

[mississippichem]

The mathematics of QM is based upon a long history of observation. There is little question that it is the best thing going concerning its predictive ability. Quantum Theory, on the other hand, are the verbal explanations as to why QM predictions are valid. This theory is where all the "lack of logic" exists. Quantum Theory could be almost entirely wrong and totally replaced, while QM could remain almost totally intact concerning its mathematics. All that would accordingly change would be the explanations.

 

Why does there need to be a logical verbal explanation? The English language was not designed with physics in mind. At the level of quantum mechanics or quantum theory, the mechanics and mathematics are quite far removed from our everyday experience. Things like tunneling, entanglement, and delocalization seem alien to us because we live in the world of large newtonian objects composed of many particles moving around at tiny fractions of c. The same things that seem alien to us are elementary conclusions drawn from QM, delocalization falls directly out of the uncertainty principle, and quantized energy levels fall straight from the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian in the Schroedinger equation

 

It is very anthropocentric to assume that the universe operates by principles that are easily understandable to humans. We have to use the mathematics to discuss these things where our everyday logic breaks down. I don't see the advantage to having a verbal explanation of quantum theory. Currently, I can use the math to predict the energy of orbitals in a large molecule, what I need is a better approximation method for the electron-electron repulsion function, not a nice piece of prose. A verbal explanation does me or any other person involved in physical sciences no good whatsoever.

 

If you want to embark on the long journey of attempting to understanding quantum phenomena, no one ever really fully understands it , then read about differential equations, linear algebra, and operator theory along with a nice dose of Newton and Maxwell for background.

[michel123456]

(...)Some theories become so well corroborated that they are accepted as 'fact', but it would take only a single observation to falsify them, (...)

That is the naive point of vue.

Usually, when a single observation seems to falsify a Theory, the observation is put in a drawer with an inscription saying "to be explained".

 

What really happens is that a Theory is falsified only when another better Theory arises. When there is no replacement, the existing Theory still stands, no matter how many observations are contradicting. Science does not accept to remain without any Theory.

Edited July 23, 2011 by michel123456

[pantheory]

Logical explanations not only grow legs but they also expand as questions get answered, puzzles become clear. As questions get answered more arise and in time things get complicated again.

I think when wierd concepts, like relativity, become accepted and understood they become more and more elementry. It's a cycle of knowledge and understanding thresholds. Knowledge is a plane of expansion that is older than physics. It is inevitable that philosophy and physics will merge as our understanding becomes more and more complete. When we know everything we will be able to do anything. Does the knowledge exist to create a universe?

 

Here we are

Nice comment. Knowledge is related to intelligence for sure.

 

Does the knowledge exist to create a universe?

Not according to any standard model, but I suggest that a universe can be created in accord with the cosmological model being presented in the associated link to this one. "Alternative to the Big Bang, model/ thread" here in the speculation forum, which truly is a theory of Everything, according to almost every possible definition of a TOE.

 

When we know everything we will be able to do anything

Of course to know everything is impossible but to know a lot more than we presently do would also be great. Presently I think most standard models presently are barking up the wrong trees concerning how the universe "really" works.

Edited July 23, 2011 by pantheory

[Ophiolite]

That is the naive point of vue.

Usually, when a single observation seems to falsify a Theory, the observation is put in a drawer with an inscription saying "to be explained".

It is not naive at all. You are ignoring two essential and distinct points.

1) I am writing a post on a forum, not a dissertation for a master's degree. Therefore I simplify, since misunderstandings can be addressed in subsequent posts, as is the case here. I thought it superfluous to explore, in detail, how the reaction to a contrary observation would depend upon the strength and character of the observation and the solidity of the theory, in quite complex ways.

2) However, a single observation may indeed falsify a theory. What you are talking about is the reaction to the observation. A valid observation that falsifies a theory does so as soon as that observation is made. At that point science has falsified the theory. It may take time, subject to the constraints referred to in 1) above, for that falsification to be accepted.

 

Science does not accept to remain without any Theory.

Scientists are uncomfortable to work without any theory. The same is not true of science.

[Mr Skeptic]

First of all, Occam's Razor is so often simplified as being in favor of the "simplest" theory, but in actual fact it refers to the number of superfluous entities proposed by the theory -- the maths of the theory could be very complex indeed, yet still deemed "simple" by Occam's Razor if it has fewer assumptions. This can be seen much more clearly in the case where the assumptions of two theories are the same but another theory has additional assumptions, in which case the extra assumption can at best decrease the likelihood of the theory holding (since [A and B] is necessarily at most as likely as A). In this case, any theory that relies on A being true will be true whenever any theory that relies on [A and B] being true is true, but not the other way around, so there is a clear reason to go with the one with the least assumptions. Simplicity in the sense that simpletons can better understand the theory, isn't really part of Occam's Razor. However simplicity, symmetry, beauty, elegance, etc. all have their value for a theory too, if only for aesthetic reasons. I'd say if two theories are equal in all other respects, choose the more elegant one, even though I can't justify that it is likelier to be true I can say that it would be more useful to us.

 

As for quantum mechanics it seems to me that it consists of two parts: 1) the theory itself, the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and 2) the multiple different interpretations of the theory, none of which seems to have any evidence over the others. Currently my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics is the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, where you use the math and don't worry about how to make it make sense to you. The other interpretations are fun though, but I don't really see any reason to give one preference over the others.

[pantheory]

Like your screen name Mr skeptic I consider myself a skeptic too. But for me my biggest problem and skeptical concern, other than with religion, concerns a number of mainstream theories today which I consider almost totally wrong, hence this thread

.

First of all, Occam's Razor is so often simplified as being in favor of the "simplest" theory, but in actual fact it refers to the number of superfluous entities proposed by the theory -- the maths of the theory could be very complex indeed, yet still deemed "simple" by Occam's Razor if it has fewer assumptions.

"Simple explanations" in this context refer to understandings and verbiage only. In my opinion Occam's Razor better applies to the logic of a model than the math, since the math of theoretical physics accordingly can never be better than a close approximation of reality and could never be an analog. Granted the inverse square laws of light, magnetism, and gravity, are pretty close approximations.

 

This can be seen much more clearly in the case where the assumptions of two theories are the same but another theory has additional assumptions, in which case the extra assumption can at best decrease the likelihood of the theory holding (since [A and B] is necessarily at most as likely as A). In this case, any theory that relies on A being true will be true whenever any theory that relies on [A and B] being true is true, but not the other way around, so there is a clear reason to go with the one with the least assumptions.

Like any other simple principle, Occam's Razor can be incorrectly applied. In the primary case that I can think of, Special Relativity was preferred over Laurenze's principles which required an Aether. In the case where there really was an Aether, as in a background particle field of some kind, then if there is a particle field like dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, field strings, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. or some field entity that carries EM radiation, then the decision accordingly based upon Ocumm's Razor would have been completely wrong -- thus disposing of a the aether concept which accordingly would instead have been correct/ or is correct. The result was Special Relativity instead of Lorenz Transforms and Quantum Theory instead of a logical theory, that in my opinion ushered in maybe a century of false theory

 

Simplicity in the sense that simpletons can better understand the theory, isn't really part of Occam's Razor. However simplicity, symmetry, beauty, elegance, etc. all have their value for a theory too, if only for aesthetic reasons.

I respect Dirac's theories at the highest level but concerning his opinion that beauty should trump simplicity, of course he was only talking about the mathematics/ physics of it.

 

I'd say if two theories are equal in all other respects, choose the more elegant one, even though I can't justify that it is likelier to be true I can say that it would be more useful to us.

Of course most would agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, simplicity appeals to logic and intellect. Dirac was a mathematician. I believe mathematics in the form of theoretical physics, could never be more than a close approximation of reality and never a mirror of it. I think that this applies both in the quantum world as well as the macro-world of Newton.

 

As for quantum mechanics it seems to me that it consists of two parts: 1) the theory itself, the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and 2) the multiple different interpretations of the theory, none of which seems to have any evidence over the others. Currently my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics is the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, where you use the math and don't worry about how to make it make sense to you. The other interpretations are fun though, but I don't really see any reason to give one preference over the others.

I agree that QM is the best thing going concerning predictions in the micro-world, but the verbal interpretations of it I think have nothing at all to do with reality -- unfortunately.

.

Edited July 24, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes. It is alright to use simple equations, like Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, provided , like Newton, we clearly state that the equations do not completely represent nature but are merely a way of calculating things.

 

The advantage of Occam is that it teaches people to think logically and consider factors that they would naturally ignore. Humans are not rational creatures, rather they are religious creatures; because evolution has tended to favour those creatures who behaved like the rest of the group, and discriminate against those individuals who made the mistake of thinking for themselves.

 

Normally when deciding on a theory, humans will firstly choose the one their colleagues favour, secondly the one they were originally taught to believe in, thirdly the one which makes the universe appear the most mysterious, and fourthly the one which requires the greatest amount of knowledge.

 

Of course humans deny all this, and merely say that they choose a theory that fits the evidence, but all theories do this at some level, because that is what they are designed to do, whether it is phlogiston, electric fluid, dark matter, quarks, gluons, Higgs, werewolves, the Loch Ness monster, or the resurrection.

[pantheory]

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes. It is alright to use simple equations, like Newton's laws of gravity and motion, provided , like Newton, we clearly state that the equations do not completely represent nature but are merely a way of calculating things.

This is also my exact take on things too

 

The advantage of Occam is that it teaches people to think logically and consider factors that they would naturally ignore. Humans are not rational creatures, rather they are religious creatures; because evolution has tended to favour those creatures who behaved like the rest of the group, and discriminate against those individuals who made the mistake of thinking for themselves.

 

Normally when deciding on a theory, humans will firstly choose the one their colleagues favour, secondly the one they were originally taught to believe in, thirdly the one which makes the universe appear the most mysterious, and fourthly the one which requires the greatest amount of knowledge.

I generally agree with your statements but believe that humans are capable of a very high degree of logic, at least compared to other animals My belief is that logic itself as a formal verbal science could be greatly improved. In my opinion only a very small percentage of humans know how to properly use it to their full advantage.

 

Of course humans deny all this, and merely say that they choose a theory that fits the evidence, but all theories do this at some level, because that is what they are designed to do, whether it is phlogiston, electric fluid, dark matter, quarks, gluons, Higgs, werewolves, the Loch Ness monster, or the resurrection.

I totally think we are in agreement and parroting each other only using different perspectives and words

 

Nice comments!

[newts]

Nice comments!

 

I thought since you lent me support on my thread, I would return the favour. I just hope my cynical sense of humour did not kill the conversation.

[pantheory]

I thought since you lent me support on my thread, I would return the favour. I just hope my cynical sense of humour did not kill the conversation.

Thanks newts for the help. Some might think your comments are cynical at times, but I consider the same comments to be realistic And when I make similar comments there may not be a sense of humor involved

Edited July 27, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes. It is alright to use simple equations, like Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, provided , like Newton, we clearly state that the equations do not completely represent nature but are merely a way of calculating things.

 

The advantage of Occam is that it teaches people to think logically and consider factors that they would naturally ignore. Humans are not rational creatures, rather they are religious creatures; because evolution has tended to favour those creatures who behaved like the rest of the group, and discriminate against those individuals who made the mistake of thinking for themselves.

 

Normally when deciding on a theory, humans will firstly choose the one their colleagues favour, secondly the one they were originally taught to believe in, thirdly the one which makes the universe appear the most mysterious, and fourthly the one which requires the greatest amount of knowledge.

 

Of course humans deny all this, and merely say that they choose a theory that fits the evidence, but all theories do this at some level, because that is what they are designed to do, whether it is phlogiston, electric fluid, dark matter, quarks, gluons, Higgs, werewolves, the Loch Ness monster, or the resurrection.

 

Right. I agree.

Except for resurrection but that would be for the religion forum, no need to derail about that.

about your "the lowest possible number of different particles", what do you think of this (from this site)

 

Back to simplicity

Fortunately the present situation is again much simpler. There now appear to be only two classes of elementary building blocks, called quarks and leptons. Quarks feel the strong interaction, leptons do not. In our normal surroundings where kinetic energies per particle are low, we have only two of each. Electrons and neutrinos are leptons. However, the proton and neutron are no longer elementary, but are made up of two types or "flavours" of quark called up (u) and down (d). Each contains three quarks: the proton is made up of two "up" and one "down"; the neutron of one "up" and two "down". The electric charges are +2/3 for up and -1/3 for down (relative to the electron charge of -1), so, as we would expect, the neutron has no charge, and the proton a positive charge of 1.

 

At higher energies, this simple pattern of two leptons and two quarks is repeated, but only twice, leading to three generation of quarks and leptons, as shown in the diagram below. Also, every quark and lepton has an antiparticle, so we end up with six each of quarks, antiquarks, leptons and antileptons.

 

Isn't that simple? (sarcasm, nothing against you). IIUC (if I understand correctly) the standard model enumerates 18 elementary particles and 13 antiparticles not counting the hypothetical ones.

 

(...) My belief is that logic itself as a formal verbal science could be greatly improved. In my opinion only a very small percentage of humans know how to properly use it to their full advantage. (...)

 

THAT is very interesting. I agree. You should open a new thread about that.

Edited July 27, 2011 by michel123456

[pantheory]

newts,

 

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes.

I agree totally, and believe 1 is an excellent number concerning the least possible individual types of entities in reality which seemingly should also should have the least number of characteristics possible to explain observed reality.

 

Michel123456,

 

THAT is very interesting. I agree. You should open a new thread about that.

I never thought of it but I followed your suggestion, it is now a new thread

.

Edited July 27, 2011 by pantheory