On this thread I do not intend to prove anything about believe systems or even that they are consistent. However, I think that we all have them and I will assume that we are doing our best at examine our positions.

My main concern is the quantity of underlying fundamental beliefs.

If we have only a single primitive belief: Life has no meaning, I think therefore I am, et cetera, then we can draw only a relatively small number of conclusions. (I am designating primitive here to exclude beliefs that directly affect others. Such as the Golden Rule). I think at one time or another we have all wanted to add more paint to the palette.

As we fill our relational data base, with Ontology, Logic, Mathematics, Physics, Genetics, Epistemology, Ethics, Psychology, and others, we also work on the queries and macros representing ever more complex theorems. (I donâ€™t know how far I can push this analogy). Eventually the underlying number of records can become quite large.

If we assume that small is insufficient, then can we assume that larger is better?

I believe that the answer is no.

In the simple minded areas that I have some knowledge about, I will try to give some examples.

In Euclidean Geometry, if you do not assume that there is one and only one line that goes through a point not lying on that line, (this is a reduction in assumptions) then you can arrive at the two non Euclidian geometries.

If you assume that the Real line is the correct way to view reality, and you exclude simpler entities such as sets which only allow addition and multiplication, then you rule out group theory and itâ€™s many interesting applications. And without number theory where would the spy business be.

There are probably even better examples in game theory, and fractals.

I would like to conclude by saying that if N represents your total number of fundamental beliefs and N is large, then getting N up, may require some professional help. (Donâ€™t disparage people with â€œSimpler beliefsâ€)