AP's 172nd book of Science-- Occam's Razor Extended to be a part of Physics and Math// Logic science I shall make this my 172nd book of science for the simple reason that my recent work with Energy= c^3 and the 3 division differential equations...

Occam's Razor Extended to be a part of Physics and Math// Logic science

I shall make this my 172nd book of science for the simple reason that my recent work with Energy= c^3 and the 3 division differential equations of AP-EM laws of physics makes the extension by Occam's Razor be a simple easy breeze task. I am further helped by the exquisite clear article written by Johnjoe McFadden "Razor sharp", New Scientist, 18/25Dec2021. It is this article that prompted me to write this book. Although the ideas for this book were hatched by me decades back, but not enough clarity to move forward into writing, until now.

For I see the Occam's Razor as a mirror image of the Least Action, Least Angular Momentum principle of physics. And now I can compound Least Action with Maximum Electricity principle in the formula of Energy= c^3=(m^2/sec)(m/sec^2) = angular momentum times acceleration.

So if we look at (m^2/sec)(m/sec^2) and assert that (m^2/sec) is Least Action and thus Occam's Razor we then ponder what Logical principle is contained in (m/sec^2) the acceleration or the Maximum Electricity principle.

It is this pondering of what is (m/sec^2) as a principle of Logic that allows me to write this book of logic.

I want to remind all readers that I had the idea that Occam's Razor was always a part of physics as early as the decade of the 1990s, but only now able to increase the knowledge of Occam's Razor.

I decided to put this book in the Logic section for the extension is a concept of Logic.

AP's 172nd Book of Science: Occam's Razor Extended to be a part of Physics and Math
by Archimedes Plutonium

An extremely excellent written article in New Scientist, 18/25 December 2021, titled "Razor sharp// Proposed by a medieval monk, Occam's Razor remains the keenest tool for honing our world view, argues biologist Johnjoe McFadden" "Occam's razor isn't just a tool of science -- it is science".

Rarely do we have science articles so clear and so brilliant in sound ideas.. This one was so exceptional that it allows me to Extend Occam's Razor into being a actual part of Physics and of Mathematics.

There is a key statement of Occam's Razor that I had never heard of before, and allows me this extension into being a part of Physics and of Mathematics. All my life I had known Occam's Razor as the "the most simple explanation is usually the true explanation."

But in this article, Occam's Razor is stated as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

What AP sees in that definition is a direct link up to mathematics of volume and to physics a direct link up to Voltage.

Later on, the author speaks of Bayes probability with a 6 sided dice and a 60 sided dice.

So, well, AP loves it when scientists write clear and logically for that allows me to extend Occam's Razor to be an actual part of physics and mathematics, and not just a outside peripheral tool to be applied here and then.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Feb 3, 2022, 12:04:02 AM (8 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So what exactly is Occam's Razor and why it is a pearl, a diamond a gemstone, a precious metal of science and logic. Why is it so rich in intellectual thought? As Occam, a 14th century theologian put it himself--" entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". And right there we have mathematics entering the picture in the name of multiplication.

But our modern day logical take on Occam's Razor is one of AP quoted "The most simple of explanations for a event is usually the correct explanation of that event".

So what do I mean by that accounting of Occam's Razor?

Well, using the example that New Scientist uses, suppose you see lights in the sky at night, and thus some other people claim they see a "alien spacecraft with thin tall aliens looking at the ground". Whereas someone with Occam's Razor sees the light as "helicopter or plane in the sky with bright light". The helicopter and plane explanation is familiar and common technology, but the alien spaceship is multiplying far beyond what is common.

So now, I am not writing this book to explain what thousands of others have explained is Occam's Razor. I am writing this book because I feel Occam's Razor is part of this physics formula of Energy.

Energy= c^3 = (m^2/sec)(m/sec^2) = angular momentum times acceleration. And I posit that the (m^2/sec) is Least Action which is Occam's Razor. And the implication of that posit is that the acceleration (m/sec^2) must also be a very important principle, as is Occam's Razor is an important principle.

So I have (Occam's Razor) (some other principle) is total Energy.

This other principle is related to acceleration in physics.

And what I have come to suspect is that this other parameter (m/sec^2) is a storage vault of information. Where Least Action as "most simple of explanations", then (m/sec^2) is maximum electricity or storage vault or archive of information. So I am dealing with the science of Information theory, a first for me.

So I have (m^2/sec) as Occam's Razor and now I postulate that (m/sec^2) is a data-bank. And there is no better data-bank in physics than the biology of DNA molecule.

So I now have (most simple explanation)(information data-bank) equals Energy. Now a better word for Energy in this situation is Reality.

I have (m^2/sec) = Occam's Razor.

And (m/sec^2) = Information Data-bank.

(Occam's Razor) times (Information Data-bank) = Reality

And the best known data-bank that is not man-made is DNA. The human mind has begun to challenge the DNA databank with things such as libraries, books, culture passed down.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Feb 3, 2022, 1:33:25 AM (7 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now let me change the name from "reality" to that of "Knowledge" for this is Logic and not physics. In physics we can speak of Energy or of reality. But here in Logic we need something more general. And Knowledge would be the result of (Occam's Razor) times (Data-bank) = Knowledge.

Now in everyday life, we use Occam's Razor but it often is just not clear which among several explanations is the "most simple" explanation and hence, likely the true explanation of a event that occurred. So here, we often have to research or as they say in detective work "follow leads and clues".

In this sense, most starting out theories of science start as a Occam's Razor Hypothesis. Hoping to have the hypothesis that is the "most simple explanation to explain the event. And then the search of more clues or facts or data would be on the other component of knowledge, the information data bank component.

(Occam's Razor) times ( Information data-bank) = Knowledge

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
1:00 AM (1 minute ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, well in a part of that article by New Scientist on Occam's Razor is the question of the 60 sided dice and we roll that with a 6 sided dice. And the question arises as to if we roll one dice and have no information as to whether it was the 60 sided or the 6 sided one, and it rolls up as a 4, what is the probability that this first roll was the 6 sided dice and not the 60 sided dice? And the article says the likelihood that it was the 6 sided dice is 10 fold likely from Bayesian inference.

Now, I wonder several things about dice rolling. So I wonder if I roll a 100 sided dice and I roll three dices of 10 sides and one of which is a different color from the other two. I roll the 100 dice and see what number comes up. Then I roll the three other dice and on the 10 sided dice of same color I multiply the result which can be no more than 100, and on the third 10 sided dice I subtract that from the result of the two other dice.

What I am looking for to solve the problem that the 100 face dice is too round like a bowling ball and is too preferential for numbers of low etchings (mass). Now I want a more equitable roll of three dice to achieve all the numbers from 1 to 100. That means of getting numbers like the primes 89 and 97 which is the largest span between two primes of 8.

What I am wanting to do is find a mathematics probability theory to compensate for dice rolling of large numbers. The 100 dice is too round and too peferential, too biased for some numbers. And so I am wanting to see if I can eliminate the bias, the preference for several numbers by rolling 3 or more dice as a compensation.

Now my 8 dice if it rolls a 1 and my two 10 dice each roll a 1 then I take that to be a 1 end result for I cannot have 0 as a number. So this muddies the water.

So the question I am pursuing here is the idea that a 100 dice is too biased. Can that bias be eliminated or made better by splitting up the number of dices-- three dice for a more accurate "fair roll"?

AP, King of Science, especially Chemistry-Physics

Not certain, but I think this would be a FAIR dice roll for a 100 sided dice. Not the single dice of 100 sides, but rather 3 dice of 10 sides, two the same color, so that we multiply the two 10 sided dice and then subtract the third 10 sided dice as to get every number between 10, 20, 30,...100. If we roll all three 10s, then we consider that third dice 10 as being 0 so as not to preferential treatment of the number 90. We consider the roll of 10 in the third dice where we subtract, we consider that as 0 for 10.

So how many ways do we have of getting to 50? Hopefully we have just one way. So we roll the two multipliers and they roll as 10 and 5 which is 10x5=50. Now the third dice rolls a 10 and so we subtract 0 and have 50. But then what happens if we roll the 9x6 = 54 and the third is rolled as 4 so we subtract and have 50.

Now if we have multiple ways of getting 50, is not all bad, provided the same quantity of multiple ways of reaching all the other numbers.

And that is impossible for numbers like 89 or 97.

So I think I maybe barking up a losing tree here. I want to find a way of no bias, no preference, for a 100 sided dice is too biased as it is like a bowling ball.

Maybe, in the end the only solution is to roll the bowling ball dice up against some object that stops it.

Perhaps there is no way possible to roll multiple dice to be equivalent to a 100 sided dice, which is beginning to be the picture in this case.

On second thought, if we hold one dice as a constant 10, and roll only 2 dice and add the result of the third dice we can escape the duplication of numbers. Where we take 10 to be equal to 0 on the third dice.

Here we roll we have a constant 10, and then roll a 5, 10x5= 50, and the third dice rolls 4 thus there is one and only one 54.

Funny, how to achieve a fairness in a large number for dice rolling means holding one number constant, then rolling a second dice of 10, then rolling a third which is addition.

Yes, I think there is hope of a Fair Roll for 100 numbers.

AP

No, the addition of the third dice does not allow for any number from 1 to 9. So I need the third dice to be subtraction. The first die is a constant 10, the second die is rolled and can be any number from 1 to 10 and whatever it rolls up as, is multiplied by the constant 10. The third die is a subtraction of the multiplied previous two die. The third die, if it rolls up as a 10 is taken to be 0.

Now, does that give me all numbers from 1 to 100 uniquely and thus fairly, no bias?

To get 1, the second die must by 1 with third die as 9. To get 100, the second die is 10 and the third die is 10. To get 90, the second die is 9 and the third die is 10. To get 97, the second die is 9 and the third die is 3.

I think I found the solution with first die a constant and third die subtraction. I think every number is uniquely begot and thus fair roll.

So this leads to a theory question. Can every number that is a scale number larger than 100 be made a fair dice roll by smaller dice of 10? How about 1000 numbers, for no single dice can handle that for it is more a sphere and thus unfair roll.

Is 100 a unique fair dice number? Is 100 the only dice that can be split up into smaller dice to be a fair roll?

I never thought AP would make any new contribution to probability and statistic theory, but looks like this is a case in point.

This has wider implications to material science and even geometry.

AP

Alright, I have a formula for this idea. It has to be a perfect-square number to allow for smaller dice to be a fair roll for a large number.

So in the case of 1000, no it cannot be made a fair dice roll, it would be like a bowling ball.

But in the case of 33^2= 1089, or 32^2 = 1024 or 30^2 = 900 we can have a fair dice roll with two dice respectively of 33, 32, 30 faces. Provided we can make fair dice of 33,32,30 faces. You need two dice of those for the first die is held constant. The second dice is rolled and suppose for 900, the second dice comes up with 15, then we multiply 15 x 30 = 450. Now we roll the third die and it comes up with 29 and we subtract that from 450.. Each number in 900 is uniquely represented.

Now the formula would be a fair dice can be obtained by N^2 = face number is a perfect square and where (j x k) - m where j is a constant, k is a roll of die and m is a roll of die.

Now the question would be, at around 60 faces we come to a practical end of dice rolling. And what if we wanted a dice roll of 10,000 number, 10,000 faces. This is really round as a bowling ball and unfair as hell.

Here the question is can we divide that into 10x10x10x10 ?

Or are we forever stymied with 60x60 = 3,600 for fair dice rolls in practice?

AP, King of Science, especially Chemistry-Physics

First off, all of Science comes from Chemistry-Physics. Chemistry is material matter and Physics is the motion of matter and energy.

But we need languages to speak of Chemistry-Physics. Common language like English, French, German, Russian are what is used to speak of science and logic is a subset of common language and mathematics is a subset of logic.

Chemistry-physics gives rise to language to logic and mathematics.

Occam's Razor is a slice of Logic, and because mathematics is a subset of Logic, everything in mathematics has to be formed also in Logic. For example, math has no division by 0, and this shows up in the logic connector of IF-->Then where the truth tables have to be TFUU where the U is unknown or undecided but not a true or false determination.

Another example is that in logic we have a principle that if a collection of statements are all false statements except for one is true, then the entire collection is a truth value of true, for we never want to throw the baby out in the bath water. This translates into a logic connector of AND having a truth table of TTTF, for that allows the smaller set of mathematics to have AND as addition and so we have 2 AND 1 = 3 , whereas the fully discredited Boole logic turned and mixed up the OR with the AND for in Boole logic they have 2 OR 1 = 3.

So what is the Logic of Occam's Razor? It is the logic of saying that the Most Simple of Explanations is the likely true explanation for the events.

That translates into Physics as Least Action. The "most simple" translates into "Least Action" and Least Action is the same as Least Angular Momentum.

In my 171st book of science Energy=mc^2 by Umov 1873 and now AP has Energy= c^3=(m^2/sec)(m/sec^2) = angular momentum times acceleration// Physics research, I go on to show, further that Least Angular Momentum times Maximum Electricity equals energy.

This then allows me to say that Least Angular Momentum is like the wavelength of light waves and the Maximum Electricity is like the frequency of light waves.

Since light waves have a constant speed, means that when Least Action or Occam's Razor have a high wavelength they have a low frequency, and when they have a low wavelength they have a high frequency.

By postulating that Occam's Razor is to Physics what Least Action is to Physics we place Occam's Razor of logic and philosophy into the center stage of physics.

AP

So, the way I am linking up Occam's Razor to be a part of physics, is that I am saying Least Action Principle of Physics is Least Angular Momentum and the "Least" concept of physics and mathematics becomes the logic concept of "Most Simple Explanation".

It is as easy as that. To translate "Least" to be that of "Most Simple Explanation".

AP

I am afraid that the limitations of a fair dice roll are limited upward by the icosahedron with its 20 faces.

And a modern day problem in fair dice is the etching of numbers which favors certain numbers and biases other numbers, for there is more mass taken out of a 8 etching than a 1 etching.

What I seek is ultimate unbiased dice.

And apparently I am restricted by the icosahedron and restricted by the formula of square root of a number.

100 can be a fair dice roll by two dice of 10 each. We hold 10 a constant. Roll a another die of 10 and whatever comes up we multiply by 10. We roll the second 10 die to see how much to subtract. In this manner we fairly represent all 100 numbers uniquely.

And there appears to be the upper limit of fair dice rolls with the number 400 which is accomplished by holding 20 constant, then rolling another die of icosahedron and multiply it by 20, then a third icosahedron die rolled to subtract thereof.

Now I need to investigate the 10 sided dice for fairness. It is not a regular polyhedron for the sides have to all be the same. So the difference with the icosahedron and decahedron is the sides and faces on icosahedron are all the same.

But this feature of the decahedron does not impact on Fairness of roll provided the numbers are not etched (varying the mass on faces), but rather the numbers are written in ink. Another method is to double the numbers from 1 to 10 on a icosahedron as a Fair die, for a roll will yield a fair number, provided and unless the numbers can be oriented in space as to not favor or bias any number. Here I recommend two adjacent faces have the same number..

This is important for chemistry-physics in the architecture and structure of the atom and molecules. Let us see if in Physics there is some favoritism for the number 400 in torus design and for the number 20 as maximum fair 3D object.

All of this research is called for because the New Scientist article brings up the issue of Bayesian probability inference in connection with Occam's Razor.

AP