Edited sentence: A corollary of the Razor is that co-opting an established entity into a new role is preferable to minting an entirely fresh entity.A theory can become more complex in terms of its structure providing its ontology becomes simpler.According to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.After all the simplest theory is something like "only I exist" (solipsism) or "nothing exists".An example is the explanation of heat using the atomic theory, rather than a separate "calorific fluid".It is the first requirement of.No, because classical physics is demonstrably wrong in some respects.Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a.Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed these tests,.Others are unnecessary.Should classical physics be preferred over more complicated theories.The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.The point is that whatever entities are posited should pay their way by doing some explanatory work.The standard example is the general theory of relativity which reduces five entities: matter, energy, space, time and gravity, to energy-matter and space-time with gravity disappearing as a separate entity.This is one of the more contentious aspects of the Razor.a theory that it works, that its predictions are correct and it has not been falsified.and which are moreover equally well-supported by the evidence.recommendation of the simplest theory come what may