thank you for your comments Mike.
i heasitated at first to even put forth those musing, in part because of the possibility of the points 1) and 2) that you described. your point 3) had not ocurred to me at all.
permitt a small quote sir:
"There is an interesting connection to everyday life, I venture, between relativity and the realms of mind."
yes, and also the connection between the uncertainty principle and the realms of the mind with respect to how we understand truth.
the principle of equivalency that Einstein used to think about gravity and acceleration is another most interesting area with respect to this line of musing. the "equivalency" line of reasoning to some degree is what gave us the ideas of matter-energy, space-time, wave-particle, electromagnetism concepts as opposed to the more classical unrelated concepts.
these arguments tend one to contemplate the relationship between observers and the phenomenon being observed. quantum mechanics and even relativity (to some degree) lead some folks to suspect that the observer (as objective as he may desire to be) affects the phenomenon that is being observed. if this is a fundamental truth then perhaps it points toward (at least in part) what our function in the universe is. Not to coin a phrase here, let me say perhaps to bear witness to the truth and in the process live through it.
that being said, for us to recognize a truth then perhaps the musings we've been discussing with respect to scientific principles and the realms of the mind with respect to how we understand truth may not be so far fetched.
the observer aspect of the intelligent design scenerio was not given much discussion in "eva's" post other than from a "third" person sort of an angle. that "intelligent" observers can make sense of the universe whether it be the macro state or the micro should lead one to suspect that intelligence has influenced the design of the universe.
i would also like to say that i did not find "eva's" reaction to your initial or second response to be justified. perhaps she had a point when she stood by her initial definitions but her ignoring of your statement about the intelligent use of probablility was i think very telling as was her fleeing the forum with "righteous" indignation.