Hi, thanks for reply.
Have to leave this computer so very quickly:
"You and I do not think along the same lines at all. Fundamentally, you take the position of "witness"; in my head, "witness" carries absolutely no weight what so ever as there exists no way to differentiate between truth and delusion. The only "rational" position on such an issue is to ignore it."
According to a textbook on reasoning; to be "rational" is to be open to argument.
Your view is not logically consistent: if there were no way to differentiate between truth and delusion; then you have no way of knowing if that opinion of yours is wrong or not!
Such a view destroys itself!
I do not see any evidence to support that view.
Also; just as I do not have to agree with your political views to debate electrons with you; you need not agree with my "eyewitness claims" to debate electrons with me! (only I don't know a lot about electrons!)
Good point about Gamow's books: I didn't think about all those quantum superposed tigers attacking Mr. Tomkins on his elephant as not being properly described due to ignoring molecular structure aspects!
I've been given my marching orders to get off this computer; so have to finish this reply later. But now 2 mathematicians have the disk; one seemed to cotton on immediately to your "attack" on the problem but I will have to wait and see what happens.