I would like to formulate “lex parsimoniae” as “less the assumptions less the liability”. Its not so much about simplicity or complexity but how simplicity or complexity are entertained by assumptions. Do we want more liability or less? Obviously less, and assumptions are a liability. They are only to be taken to make a matter more accessible and not less.
So assumption is inversely proportional to accessibility and directly proportional to the invalidity of a theory. We do not assume there is one sun, we know there is one sun, there is no liability here. But “for any theory” if we assume “two suns” thats a liability because thats an assumption. So add another assumption, that, the one sun is small in size and another bigger, than say our planet. Then thats another liability on our theory vs how valid it is to reality.
We are not proving a theory to be more real by adding more complexity in this sense. It has ultimately to be subjected to tests of reality and thats where lesser assumptions have therefore a bigger chance of success as a good theory. A bad student does not become better at passing his tests because he has more and more of the tests. Its the opposite.
A good theory will pass the tests even if there are more tests, but its a subjective manipulation to let theories be squandered in abstract delusional tinkering. If a good theory is not good, it will fail sooner than not. So why give it more and more test. A bad theory without “subjective manipulations” anyway is clear enough to be bad. So why, more tests. This is the zest of “lex parsimoniae” or as I would call “cut it out”. Its also called as Okham’s Razor. “Among the hypotheses one that carries the least number of assumptions is the one to be chosen.”
Learning by the skimp ! Because learning by the ocean is like swimming the ocean from one side to the another.
One can learn only by seeing the quantum. And that is to say to not see anything to begin with. The difference is in the fact that not seeing something is a negation. But seeing something hardly enough, less than what we even perceive, materializes in a long enough time. We are therefore not to judge what we are going to see. We can judge ignorance and agree to live with it. But we can let our ignorance recede by making suitable attempts at learning from the ocean of knowledge, tiny pebbles, thats possible only when we have prepared ourselves to realize our pedestal is uncertain. But if a stride is not taken its certainly dark. If a stride is taken the uncertainty is uncertain. We tilt the balance of our chances for knowledge and ignorance by our own action. To persevere by a little amount, and hoping to get a sizable chunk at the end of the decade is what most people who have excelled would swear.
Something just occurs to me. We often do stuff so that we could get some pleasure remembering it. We don’t have to do stuff that are too hard. Thats what makes us human. Thinking about it thats how we invented secs. My x key is not working so I used a cs instead. We invented sex because it was the easiest thing to do and remember for pleasure for a long time. I mean its definitely easier than hunting. Where do you get an armory and chase an animal through all the wilder things. Easier done than even said, sex.
The fact that we didn’t even invent clothes, yet, just made it easier. The ancient people lived without a dress code of conduct for a really long time, till the hard working folks who hunted convinced the politicians to implement some sort of casual code of conduct. (pun)
Because those who worked so hard, hunted and gathered leather, that leather merchandise had to be sold. They made clothes and politicians jumped into the fray convincing and forcing people by law to wear clothes. Politicians have been friends of businessmen since primeval times.
So men and women began wearing leather. But by that time sex had already achieved its culmination into an easiest pleasure seeking activities in the wild. “Honey we have been really tired looking for some wild boar to hunt. Okay lets have some and get back home. We will hunt again, we already have the meat for the next week. “
In any case it still exists and we swear by its pleasure rewards.
A minor disagreement with the way Nobel Peace Committee chose to depict two large countries of the world, sounding like an arbiter for everything that would go here.
From Nobel official website; “The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism. ”
Its a great thing India and Pakistan won Nobel Peace, that too together. But it sounds like a cheap gimmick to volley the idea that they are Hindu-Muslim and Indian-Pakistan. Did then the committee forget that they are Men-Women. I mean we should not stop at any divisive rues that are out there? Not expected from Peace Committee.
(How about 2015 Nobel Peace to China and USA, carefully chosen, Christian and Buddhist laureates?) More…
What happens when some UV falls on biological molecules? (or any kind) some of these molecules like the wooden pole absorb the energy and there still remains energy which they can emit as visible light. So the UV light kicks the molecules and the molecules in turn emit visible light. This implies that the UV wavelength that the molecules absorbed energy at are very small compared to the wavelength at which they emit visible light. This is always the case.
When we say some materials are fluorescent it means they absorbed higher energy and emitted lower energy radiations of colorful light.
But this has a great deal of application apart from its theoretical interest. More…
Define an Hour Circle.
Its a bit tricky to define some astronomical parameters and not run into innocent looking misrepresentations of facts. One needs to cool his amber more times than there are parameters, then one gets a feel where and how to begin and give a good description.
Hour Circle is a GREAT Circle, on a celestial sphere ** that, at the same time, passes through one of the celestial poles. Hence it passes through both of the celestial poles*.
A great circle is a circle that passes on a sphere, so that its radius (or diameter) equals to the radius (or diameter ) of that sphere.
If the great circle goes through one of the poles (– so both poles as an imminent condition of this definition) its also called a meridian and this circles’s angular reference wrt one of all possible meridians is called a longitude angle, or simply longitude. More…