Are you saying that we do not know reality, but our thoughts somehow create it if they survive the process of becoming a 3-d fractal hologram?

Can you support this truth claim?

I would further say that our knowledge is limited to that which appears in space and time(spacetime if you prefer). We cannot know anything at all about a thing which has never appeared. We cannot know about that which may or may not exist beyond space and beyond time.

About those things we can only speculate.

Thoughts are written on paper. We don't argue about subjective matters. I mean I am certainly not going to argue about another's personal preferences. We argue about the way things are. We argue about truth claims.

The review claims a basis holding to Occam's razor, but the explanations most certainly violate it. Diplomas and degrees do not garauntee sound reasoning, even if they look nice on a wall and garauntee a higher salary.

I think he was talking about the holding to Occam's razor being in the DNA.

There is no "simple" explanation when it comes to explaining the existence of life in the universe from our perspective. There may be a simple basic formula in DNA, and thought somehow makes contact with DNA according to findings by a cellular biologist I was reading about. Can't remember the name, sorry.

True, but what is considered sound reasoning is an opinion. He wrote an entire book about thought. I'm sure he put a lot of thought into it.

I'm not sure I could easily comprehend the introduction to his book myself, let alone make judgments about whether or not he employs sound reasoning.

In any case, I'm sure he hears objection and criticism from a lot of people and I respect his credentials.

That is very interesting. Can you tell me where that information comes from?

Occam's razor basically says that when there are two or more equally plausible explanations for the same phenomena, the one making the fewest assumptions is best.

I've never heard it put quite that way before.

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

How Occams's razor went from
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

to:

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Is certainly an enigma.

Occam's razor applies to this thread in the sense that we ought not posit unnecessary things. If every thought has certain common denominators, then that is the only place we ought look. Every thought has an object of thought; something being thought about.

Agreed?

I have NOT come to any conclusion on the matter.

I do contemplate the claim:

Thoughts are things.

That which we write down are written thoughts...

Agreed?

I guess that Di and myself are pointing to where we must look to talk sensibly about thought. We need only look at ourselves and what we write and do. I mean, what could possibly constitute a better place to look?

The written word may represent thoughts, but they are not thoughts.

Indeed, we are thinking centers.

Looking to yourself, within yourself is a good place to look.

So you're writing something other than your thoughts?

Yes. I write symbols that spell words that represent sounds that have meanings and definitions.

My thoughts, if I am good at what I write, will be sparsely conveyed and maybe understood.

Most of the time .... they are not understood. Many times they are misunderstood, all the time they are inadequate representations of the whole thought.

I am of the position that if one cannot put their thoughts into words then they do not know what it is that they are thinking.

I don't share that opinion.