I love a rule that makes sense.

Because some don’t. And, as they say, there are exceptions to every one.

And then there are philosophical laws — juicy ideas to consider, abide by or pick apart. Take one of my favorites, Occam’s razor, defined as choosing to believe the simplest answer when a situation with multiple explanations presents itself.

This is the anti-conspiracy theory theory. For example, if you wake in the morning to find all of your zucchini have disappeared, would you attribute it to zucchini-loving aliens who piloted their craft overhead during the night, aimed their spotlight down on your vegetable garden, and sucked up your squash into their spaceship for probing? Probably not. It makes much more sense to believe a gaze of raccoons was jonesing for a midnight snack. Although, that alien theory is beginning to look more plausible in the wake of recent headlines.

Live Well: Acupuncturists use ear to treat physical issues (copy)

We’re all probably familiar with Murphy’s Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Such a pessimist, that Murphy. But sometimes accurate. I’ve found what goes wrong is something I never even considered going wrong. Or maybe I just have a poor imagination.

It’s the diagnosis you’ve never heard of. The person who buys the house next door and turns it into an Airbnb. The torrent of mosquitos that swarms you when you venture outside in your favorite previously non-buggy vacation spot.

And how about Sturgeon’s Law, which states 90% of everything is rubbish? This applies to all manner of things, including books, films, TV shows, phone apps, video games, cars, haircuts and shoes. Is almost everything garbage? I suppose it depends on how you define garbage. One human’s trash is another’s treasure, or so they say. I’m inclined to categorize Sturgeon’s Law in the 90%.

Another razor: Hanlon’s razor. (Why so many razors?) This one advises to never attribute to ill intent what can also be explained by incompetence or stupidity. I’m a fan of this one, as one who endeavors to give the benefit of the doubt. That person who blocked in my car a couple of weeks ago on a Sunday morning? She didn’t do it on purpose to evilly thwart my Sunday morning plans. No, it was more like a case of obliviousness. And also alcohol, judging by the rager at their house the night before.

Live Well: New PATHWEIGH visits help address obesity at UCHealth clinics in Colorado

Dunbar’s number is the number of people with whom you can maintain stable social relationships — 150 is usually cited. To which I say, excuse me? 150 people? That gives me heart palpitations. But again, perhaps it depends on the quality of those relationships. We probably all know 150 people, thanks to social media, but the quality of those relationships is paltry.

Around 2007, though, Robin Dunbar, the British anthropologist behind the original numbers game, posited that, in addition to the 150-person social circle, we can really only maintain five close relationships at a time. This seems much more plausible. An ex-romantic interest once told me about this study, prompting me to silently tally up his closest people and realize I was No. 6. Weeks later, he became a ghost. Maybe I got Dunbar’d or maybe he just didn’t like me.

Betteridge’s law of headlines, named after British journalist Ian Betteridge, claims if a headline is phrased as a question, the answer is no. Let’s vet this, shall we? Here are a few recent headlines from The New York Times: “How long will interest rates stay high?” (Not a yes or no.) “What can you do when A.I. lies about you?” (Storm the castle?) “Did the U.S. coach’s approach fail his players in the World Cup?” (Finally, a yes or no answer. But here the reporters indicate this is a yes, after reading partway into the article.)

And from the Los Angeles Times: “It’s lights out for incandescent bulbs. Did anyone even notice?” (No?) “Is Indonesian food finally having its moment in Los Angeles?” (The reporter says yes.)

Live Well: Not so good at decisions? You’re not alone

What say you, Betteridge? It appears your theory is right less than half the time. And no, you may not answer with a “no.”

Here’s a fun one: Clarke’s third law, which says any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It’s from the mind of science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, the man behind the novel and screenplay, “2001: A Space Odyssey.” I don’t dispute this law. Video chat, email, air fryers, Oura Rings. They all seem like dang miracles to me.

Which brings me to math professor John Littlewood’s law of miracles, which states that during the course of a person’s life miracles happen at a rate of about one per month. Love it, sign me up. But digging a bit further reveals his belief that we shouldn’t attach significance to these miracles, due to the enormous amount of events and interactions that take place daily for each of us. These extraordinary coincidences are bound to happen along the way, he says, and are not rare, nor meaningful.

To which I say pshaw. I see your law, Mr. Littlewood, and I’m going to Occam’s razor it. I choose to believe in the miracle. Mulson’s law of happy accidents — everything is meaningful.

Contact the writer: 636-0270