I have been studying Astrology for decades now, and each day I find a new thought, a new judgement or theory that is believed to add to the understanding of this science. For some it is a life's work, for others it is just a passing thought or an inconsequential relief in the parody of life. However, I continue to research new and exciting revelations, and am thankful daily for the new breed of Astrologer who continue to amaze me. Still, I simply cannot relate to those who feel it necessary to continually build on repetition, on redundancy.

There are the psychologists, the ever manifesting breed of the "new" Astrologer who believe that it is psychology, not Astrology, that bases its concept of how man and the human condition are related. Left to psychologists the bus must go through their gates and arches before one can continue on to the road of Astrology. This is fallacy of course, but there are are many camps that believe it is their road that Astrology must travel before revealing the enigma that is truth.

Then there are the mathematicians, the ones who gave birth to the language of the universe and the measurements that allow for Astrological interpretation at its finest. Without the mathematician how could we Astrologers begin to form the process of how Astrology speaks to us. It is through the scientific mind that the hallowed authority of disclosure is unveiled. There are those that feel Astrology is a pseudo science, yet it was the scientific mind that delivered its body and communications to us.

With, or without this diverse collection of contemporaries I am brought to the theory of "Ockham's Razor." First, a little about Father William of Ockham. Friar Ockham was a 14th century English theologian and logician who believed in the law of succinctness, the law of economy. Ockham wrote "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Ockham 's Razor Theory was and still is used as a rule of thumb to help guide scientists in the development of theoretical models. Father Ockham also wrote that "plurality should not be posited without necessity," profiling my reasons for bringing this esoteric theory to light.

So, what or how does this apply to Astrology? Well, as I have previously stated there are those that continue to lay substructure after substructure in an endless list of theory and application to the science of Astrology. Where or when does it all end, or at least recede? Computer scientist Marcus Hutter mathematically proved that shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the expected value of an action across all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations. In other words, "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

Many of my students become confused by the diversity and plurality of Astrological theory, and rightly so. Astrology is a complex representation of math, philosophy, culture, belief systems, and understanding. There are the pragmatic, and the impractical, and those in between when it comes to the type of student or teacher of Astrology. The application of Astrology is only further frustrated when an unnecessary theory or rule is forwarded without benefit or advantage. You would not believe how many "old Astrological rules" are no longer considered or employed.

I believe it is wise to remember that when studying anything, "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."