NancyLebovitz comments on Kevin T. Kelly's Ockham Efficiency Theorem - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Johnicholas 16 August 2010 04:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (81)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 August 2010 02:13:17PM 0 points [-]

If there are a very large number of fundamental particles, it is likely that there is some reason for the number,

Could you expand on this?

The only reason I can think of is that the particles have various qualities, and we've got all the possible combinations.

I assume that there some range of numbers which suggest an underlying pattern-- it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a significance to the number of stars in the galaxy.

I think there was something in Gregory Bateson about this-- that there's a difference between a number that's part of a system (he was talking about biology, not physics) as distinct from "many".