In David Laibson's interview, he mentions the idea of Occam's razor in assessing how likely a theory or explanation is to be correct. I thought it was interesting because our models have a tendency to get progressively more complicated with time, when we introduce even more subtleties in the model. That got me wondering, is Occam's razor really a valid way to "interpret" the world, or is it a tool to keep us from tripping over ourselves? Many times in "nature," simpler != true, but it is a fact that the more convoluted a theory or explanation is, the less likely it is for us to adequately understand and use it. I don't know, just something that I thought about while watching the lecture.