Russell McMahon wrote:

[snip]
> This is notwithstanding the apparent fact that 'things' make and 
> unmake themselves at not too far above the minimum possibly measurable 
> level all the time. They do this so as to not violate some fundamental 
> rules which we assert "just are" based on observation. We don't know 
> why the rules should be or how they came about or even if we have a 
> complete rule set. We base the rules entirely on a set of best guesses 
> which we then empirically refined by comparing them with experienced 
> reality. A key rule that says things MUST make and unmake themselves 
> all the time spontaneoilsy so that reality can exist as we (think we) 
> know it is called something like "Henry's you don't really know what's 
> happening principal". This is a great rule as it matches what we see 
> very very well, even though it makes absolutely no rational sense at 
> all. Another great rule is named something like "Einrichs you can't 
> get there from here, or, at least, not for a while yet relatively 
> speaking principle"  This asserts that nothing is as it seems if you 
> are somewhere else instead. This makes no sense at all ogically but 
> works very well in practice. Einrich says there's no way that anyone 
> who dreamed all this up would be a gambler but Bell disagreed and said 
> that two will get you one (or was that 'two are really one'?) and 
> Einrich says that that's just spooky. The GREAT rule is the QM rule 
> which says that if a tree falls in the forest then there is no tree 
> and no forest and certainly no sound until you let the cat out of the 
> box and find out what really happened whereupon everything collapses 
> like a wave and we find out who really did it and if the cat is/was 
> dead, but never in between.
[snip, snip, snip...]

Russell, you make my head hurt sometimes. :)

Vitaliy
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist