Buddha's Razor

Quite a few people have been coming around to the idea that I don't think like everyone else. Generally speaking, I consider this to be a good thing, but other people have their own ideas. A few people have asked me to explain my perspective over the last few weeks, in so many words. This is a quick entry to do just that.

There's this thing called Ockham's Razor, which states (in Latin): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - or, in English, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. It's wildly misused throughout the world by people who have memorized other people's ideas, and it's rare to find it being used appropriately. I say this because there are 3 parts of Ockham's Razor which people fail to comprehend.

Entities should not be Multiplied beyond Necessity

I agree with Ockham's Razor. I agree with it in a different manner than most. Consider these three things:

• Entity: What is an entity? An entity can be a rule, an observation, or anything that we can 'tag' with a name. Science and philosophy have proven on more than one occasion that each entity is made up of other entities; thus to call something an entity is to attend to it's recursive nature in being made up of other entities.
• Multiply: Multiplication is largely considered to be something that increases the number of things. However, when multiplying a number by a number less than one, it's actually division (for example, 0.5 x 2 = 1). The spirit of Ockham's razor is to make things as simple as possible - but no simpler. The danger of both multiplication and division to necessity is therefore implicit: thus, taking a stand on an issue which has been *multipied* or *divided* beyond necessity is folly. The trick is that only through experimentation of multiplication and division of entities do we find the magic part of the equation.
• Necessity: Necessity is largely contextual, and entirely subjective to a judging entity's perspective. Prejudice is inherent in determining necessity.

In the end, even the application of Ockham's Razor has to allow for itself to exist within a context which it is used in. It's not as simple as people make it out to be, and it certainly isn't to be used to prove anything; it in itself is the proof. What it is being applied to reveals the depth of Ockham's Razor, not the other way around.

Thus, I present what I call 'Buddha's Razor':

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

-- Buddha

In other words: Think, don't rationalize.