> I thought scerir was pointing out that although QT is simple in the Ockham
> sense and works rather well, it appears to contain key elements that are...
> *silly, too silly*. When you have a gadget that switches a light on with
> the photons that are emitted from the light that has been switched on (to
> use a clumsy analogy), I reckon you're in trouble, even though it does
> possess a wonderful zany simplicity.
Remember though that it was Niels Bohr who said, the theory is silly,
but is it silly enough to be true? (Or was that Monty Python?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:44 MDT