I agree with "whatever gets results you keep and everything else gets thrown out with the bathwater".
But I think that is the real philosophy of science just in other words, and it can be well defined.
I think that "whatever gets results you keep" in combination with what we do is another...
I think that in relativity it is not (in contrast to Classical mechanics).
But it has some unique characteristic:
1) The second law of thermodynamics.
2) Any object exist somewhere in any given time, but not the opposite.
I mean there is a function from time to x,y,z because in any t an...
I think that the paradox is when using the whole language.
I see the problem with a). I think that for this case we can say that any description that is mathematically impossible under certain axioms is logically equivalent.
I think that science advanced when we are able to describe more phenomenons in less entities. When we have a disprove we are take leave of a wrong theory, so we are able to think of new one that will describe the new experiment too, although this theory will probably be disproved too - the new...
I think that any number that can be described as 'the least number which cannot be described in less than N syllables' can also be described in 18/20/100 syllables.
Just in the way u did.
If we have a very long number that adds syllables, like N=10^(10^10), we can describe it in less...
I agree that symmetry in our theoretical entities is much more aesthetic.
In my opinion, when we have symmetry, we prefer it because we can find a more basic theoretical explanation for it.
Like in Maxwell's equations and an approximation to the Einstein field equations.
Isn't it the Falsifiability of Karl Popper?
I think Ockham's razor is: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
Thank all of you for the answers.
I know Occam's razor is secondary to the test itself, and isn't telling (or scientific theories at all) the absolute truth.
hey all, I have a few questions about Occam's razor.
First what is considered to be a entity?
Is it any basic law of nature? (that is not a result of other laws).
A mathematical axiom/set of axioms that is needed for the theory (like Euclidean geometry for classical optics).
How do I write and do calculation on those vectors?
Can I describe a vector in a that belongs to a 2.5 dimension, in less then 3 coordinates?
Do u know about cases which in the topological dimension don't much the space dimension?
Thank u very much.
wow a lot of views :rolleyes:
amm if there is someone who don't know, but thinks that if there was this kind of a thing he would have know, please write that 2.
Do u think such a thing can be exist or there r theoretical limitation about it?
but ill wait in patience o:)
Hey, first I want to say my English & Math aren't the best yet, so ill be glad to explain myself again if I'll need to :smile:
I hope this question belongs to this section.
I want to ask, is there today a way to do calculations about vectors above fractal dimension? (and I would like to...