> for more details, see:
> http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9409195

> John Bailey
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

> >Particle physics is statistical physics. Even 'periodic table' is
> >based on statistics. All predictions in which the prediction was
> >without error (zero error predictions) are numerical. Using the idea
> >of numbers can we conceive a system that is predictable with absolute
> >certainty and zero-error? I believe that 'structure' of a predictable
> >system would represent 'Theory of Everything. Can we at least imagine
> >the qualities of a Statistical Predictable System?

> We can indeed.  A significant population of the physics community have
> come around to the point of view that wave functions are complete
> descriptions of the universe with no indeterminancy. The problem is
> explaining *collapse* which occurs when elements not included in the
> representation interact with the represented part.  Decoherence vs
> entanglement. Everett's many-worlds theory or its successor, Deutsch's
> Multiverse concept is grudgingly admitted, even by its critics as the
> only game in town that explains why unpredictable outcomes are
> observed. The only other answer is the positivist's approach *don't
> ask--if it works: shut-up and read your meter"

> for more details, see:
> http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9409195

> John Bailey
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html