I don't believe in anything, yet I believe emphatically in almost everything. It all depends on what seems appropriate at the time.
When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.
My God is the green tide in the spring leaves the redness of cherries high in the air the excitement of shooting stars the song of birds in summer branches the sunrise on a winter's morning the name of everything we don't understand.
With all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
I think you have to be much more secure and much less angry to trust the simple. You've got to be in a pretty good place to trust those simple, obvious answers and, most important, to use them.
Despite the development of chess theory, there is much that remains secret and unexplored in chess.
I think fame is one of those things where you have a window of opportunity and you have a certain amount of trust from the fans and without that you don't have a career.
I'm a really skinny guy, I'm real tall, and I have a very high metabolism, so if I drink anything with caffeine in it, it makes me have an anxiety attack. So I can't do coffee, or cola, or coffee ice cream, or any of those things. They make me feel like I'm going berserk.