|
I think that's a very interesting post. There is great subtlety in how one must interpret physical results to get any semblance of a correct logic. The philosophy that deals with this area has I believe a most interesting praxis; it's the study of sometimes impossibly simple questions(simple in so far as they are the base questions, the ones we want to answer) which by their nature yield only to frustratingly simple answers(frustratingly with respect to their rarity and brilliance in insight).
I must say I first read roachboy's post then got up and paced for about a half an hour( which is my preferred method of thinking), and I came to the conclusion that if I were to start writing in as many directions as I wished I would only be finished sometime after new years. So the little snippet above is all I thought appropriate to share for brevity and my sanity's sake. Really big thumbs up rb. I love to think, so thanks for providing fodder.
|