Hmm, okay... read that, and i think i follow what you mean (then again -- by being so concise -- you frequently leave wiggle room for individual interpretation of what *all* you may have meant).
So in this thread then, it may not be totally clear what "the set of questions" are. But words such asrealityhave been put to use frequently throughout these past 12 pages. So yes... if divining the position of a baseball [tossed by a human] was the extent of 'reality' around here... then indeed Newton is as far as we need take this discussion. But apparently planet Mercury turned out a little too fleet-footed for his laws? That reminds me of an extinct band 'Made In Sweden' who had a song (instrumental actually) called "43 Seconds of Arc per Century" (wicked 4/4 beat, almost uncountable despite being common-time).
Anyway... as far as looking at (and explaining) items such as the Big Bang or quantum phenomena? -- We need better guns!
Verisimilitude, schmerisimilitude.
--
What i found interesting was that 'conscious observer' paper by Zeh. He seems to be saying that the Schrödinger wave function equation may not merely represent some separate (independent) objective "reality" concept (such as 2+2=4 or distance=rate*time), but rather it expresses a function which also constitutes a 'coupling' between the observer and the observed. [i.e., more of a subjective reality.] Did you see anything like that in there, or was i hallucinating (and how can you tell)?
