That certainly used to be the case, and the laws haven't changed. But I believe that there have been some court decisions that have found people guilty of copyright violation purely from downloading. Something about "you copied it onto your computer disk, and that was a violation of the law".
For that matter, I believe that there were a couple of decisions a decade or so ago that said you committed a fresh violation every time you accessed it.
"All I know is what I read in the papers." IANAL, etc.
IIUC, they can ignore the copyright internally in Antigua. And it's legal for them to offer it on the web, from servers located within the country. But this doesn't mean it's legal for you to download the wares (N.B.: not warez in this case) unless you are operating within Antigua.
Suspending the copyright on US goods within Antigua doesn't permit you to import them into some place where those copyrights aren't suspended.
OTOH, IANAL. I could well be wrong. But that's my reading of what it means.
Yeah, but it's slightly wrong. It's not power that corrupts, it's lack of consequences.
Of course, it's often hard to observe this distinction, because even honorable people with power tend to act to shield themselves from the results of their actions. Nobody likes to be blamed or punished, no matter how much they might warrant it, and also no matter how honorable their intentions.
If I'm understanding recent findings correctly, free radicals are probably NOT related to aging, and may be a defense mechanism against bacteria.
OTOH, that was an isolated study, so perhaps it's wrong. Still, I'd be hesitant about any certainty right now. (In particular, high levels of anti-oxidants in the blood were associated with shorter life-spans. Of course we're talking mice here.)
More specifically, a CNC machine normally doesn't have any intelligence, so it's not a robot, any more than a telefactor is. And telefactors often have MORE internal intelligence than CNC machines. They need to avoid causing harm by accident to either themselves or others. CNC machines often just operate out of ROM, with essentially no state. (Well, they do have a tiny bit of state, but not much. And this one might not need any.)
I really despise the way the term "robot" is being abused for anything mechanical. A robot car is reasonable for a self-driving, or even self-parking car. But applying it to a remote controlled arm is like calling a car with power steering a robot. And the fact that the actions are pre-programmed doesn't improve things. Not unless you want to call a thermostatically controlled heater a robot.
I don't think you read, or perhaps understood, what the blogger was saying, *OR* what the original report was saying. They don't appear to be in actual disagreement.
The original paper was reporting on how a particular climate model responded to the data. The blogger was criticizing that class of models. They may well *BOTH* be correct.
Personally, I don't really have an opinion on that particular issue. I'm more focused on different kinds of evidence, and I'm also not a climate scientist. To me it appears that the current evidence indicates that lowball estimation of the amount of climate chage are wrong, basically because the ice has been melting faster than predicted even by most "alarmists". But I'm willing to admit that I have a high degree of uncertainty. Someone who convinced me that they had a reasonable explanation AND that global warming was slowing would be possible. I just haven't encountered any such.
Additionally, I'm well aware that the politicians censored many of the more extreme predictions out of the official report as being too alarming. So I'm dubious about how accurate it's "conservative" predictions are. Some of the excluded predictions have already been shown to be more accurate than the included ones. (Mind you, there's a wide variation. E.g. I don't really expect the sea level to rise by 500 meters.)
Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source.NET effort"
OK, but they have threatened patent action against open source. Do you REALLY believe they won't attack Mono if they find it in their interest? They will, whether you believe it now or not. Don't be naive.
Actually, that's wrong. It was in the very early days of Mono, but a Microsoft vice-president (whatever that means) announced in the press that ".NET is our technology and we will defend it" in a context that was clearly a threat to Mono. There may have been no follow-up, but it was said, and I never saw a retraction.
I think the last time the US rolled out tanks against it's own citizens was during the 1960's. In the south. But i could have missed a few occasions. (Sometime between "Little Rock" and "I have a dream!", but I can't pin it down any closer after this much time.)
N.B.: When they did it, most citizens outside the area approved. (Or at least most people I knew did.) I don't know whether this is also true in China, but it could well be.
OTOH, whoever your ISP is also has all your e-mails. And so does whatever governmental official was curious about them. (No warrant required, all ISPs appear to be compliant.)
But *WHY* did you give them your password? Not that it's difficult for a large organization to crack any normal machine, but why make it THAT trivial?
Sorry, but I've even heard suspicions about British software.
Nothing wrong with your point that it's bigotted, but China isn't the only country to have people bigotted against them. And I'm not sure they deserve any less skepticism than any of the others. Which is why I prefer GPL software. At least in principle, that can be verified to be honest.
That may be so, but why did they sue Lego rather than George Lucas? I think they were just looking for a soft target rather than actually offended, and because of that I hope they lose big. Say having to pay the defendants legal costs, and court costs, and a percentage for a frivolous lawsuit.
The developers aren't the only people at risk here. Anyone who checks out the development tree is at risk. And just having the source code doesn't automatically protect you. You aren't very likely to go over the code with a fine toothed comb. And even if you did, it would be quite easy to miss an inserted "mal-feature". (I can't really call it a bug, since I'm thinking of code that was doing what it was intended to do, just not what *you* intended it to do.)
Yes. They are turned into silicic acid. Which, of course, can then be converted back into silicon nano-paritcles, with the input of energy.
So the question becomes "how efficient is the recharging?". Which probably can't be done at home, so don't think of it as a rechargable battery, but rather as a recycleable one. Sort of like the vanadium flow battery, or that other one based around boron (or was it barium?). But silicon is a lot more available. So if the process is reasonably efficient...
I, personally, would say she is engaging in carefully constructed slander which is probably just this side of illegal. Not that she would be in any danger no matter what she said. He's dead, and precedent says that you can't slander the dead.
Nothing "alleged" about it. If they are copying people's files without permission, they are engaging in copyright infringement. Perhaps the law has some legal twist to the definition of common words that would mean this isn't legally true, but it would be true under the normal common meanings of the words.
N.B.: Even if the items were put on the hard drive by the creators, this would not change things...unless those creator gave permission. (And, IIRC, the permission needs to be in writing.) And whenever you write a note, you own the copyright to that note.
What is alleged is that some of the files infringed copyright when they were copied to the hard disk in the first place. Which is a different, though related, matter.
What you're missing is the measurement of frequency that allows position to be calculated. That depends on relativity, but I can't remember whether it's special or general relativity. Look up " The Mossbauer Effect". It's not done with simple triangulation.
Actually, wormholes are quite probable on the extreme micro scale. Unfortunately, I believe the distance through them is usually longer than the distance in normal space between the end points. And they require bracing with something having negative energy to be stable at larger than the extreme micro scale. Also, there are indications that they are quite likely to collapse if something tries to travel through them. So you need more bracing.
Now states with negative energy are possible, indeed, the Casimir effect is based around them. But they, also, tend to prefer extremely small separations of distance.
I think that wormholes are much more plausible as a communications mechanism, and if you can catch one, and keep it stable, they would provide a means for trans-time communication. (But you need to accelerate one end of the worm-hole while keeping the other stable, and then bring the other end back after sufficient relativistic time-dialation. And they might not be stable through that...but perhaps they could be stabilized. The only questions are: 1) would the speed of light within the worm-hole match that outside it? 2) could you keep the wormhole stable during the process (without stretching the connection length).
Still, if you do everything just right, you might be able to send photons down it and receive an answer.before you ask the question. The causal implications are very strange, but, IIUC, they are consistent with the standard model of quantum physics. (For a fictional treatment of this, see "Timemaster" by Forward. It's fiction, but he's careful with his physics, and was a professional physicist.)
When things like this are consistent with physics as known, don't be too quick to presume that just because we can't do something now, it can't be done.
No, no. Light has a constant velocity. What you should mean is:
(2) The faster you go, the more energeticly the light will hit the front (including what you catch up to), less energetic photons will hit the back (when your bubble of space time is moving faster than the speed of light, you'll be outrunning it), and the less time something coming in from the side will have to actually cross the threshold..
And actually this is a major problem, because the front will be essentially converted into X-rays of high energy. (Or, if you like, gamma radiation.) Light from behind would lengthen towards radio waves, and perhaps beyond...though as you point out, if you're actually going faster than light none of this radiation will actually impinge.
I'm not sure what would happen to light from the sides. There's no obvious reason for it to experience frequency transformation, but it should become extremely weak in any one place. It would probably be a modified version of both before and behind, as you are approaching it at a shallow angle at first, and as you pass it you are departing at a shallow angle. So I would expect a streak, but so dopplered that little of it could be seen. And also so attenuated that little of it could be seen.
OTOH: This all depends on how large a bubble of space you are surrounding yourself with, and on whether the space is moving with you, or whether a wave of change is propagating through space. If the latter, then you shouldn't see any noticible change, because the space surrounding you, containing the propagating photons, is also changing. In that case, the effects would occur at the edge of the bubble, so you'd still see the "bright light" up ahead (bright in the X-ray region of the spectrum or higher), but elsewhere things would look normal. Because you're constantly tranforming the space around you, but not carrying it with you. And it's not empty.
FWIW, I've never figured out the details, just that it would be unreasonably dangerous. High energy X-rays are not your friends.
If wormholes are feasible, that may be a much safer way to travel. (Even there things get tricky, as you need negative energy supports, but those exist at least at the extremely micro scale. But nowhere do I see sign of a protection against high energy X-rays.) Similarly for higher dimensional short-cuts other than wormholes. There may be really bad problems, but it's less sure that they are insurmountable. High energy X-rays, however, split atoms that they encounter, even light ones, much less molecules. A high enough intensity of high energy X-rays would probably convert any atoms in their field of action into hydrogem.
Well, that's one reason I generally use GPL software. The license used by the company often wouldn't impact me, but understanding their license sure would. If there's an acceptable GPL alternative, I automatically prefer it BECAUSE I already know what that license says.
N.B.: For some others the BSD or MIT license serves the same purpose, but I find more software under the GPL license.
FWIW, I prefer about 4 different licenses for different purposes. And I both resent and resist using any license I don't already know.
FWIW, if you install Java, I think it auto-installs in the browser. Otherwise I don't know how it got there. And I use Debian. (OTOH, I've also installed a lot of packages. So it could have been something else that installed it.)
FWIW, the Java that was installed was OpenJDK, or perhaps Iced Tea. Not the Oracle flavor. But when I checked IceWeasel it was installed. (Actually, it's still installed. I just deactivated it.)
That said, I'm always dubious about Java. I understand why it's a lot more popular than C/C++, but Java seems neither as easy as the scripting languages nor as powerful as the compiled languages. The main thing it seemed to have going for it was being pushed by a large friendly company. Now the "friendly" has disappeared. (Oracle sure isn't Sun.)
To rule out an idea because you can't test it is an indefeasible bias in favor of your current ideas, which also can't be tested WRT the differences in assumptions of the other "untestable" ideas.
One may argue that a certains set of ideas is more pragmatically useful than other ideas that are consistent with the observations, but that's not the same as arguing that they are true. We may be living in a computer simulation. It may be such a limited simulation that you are the only real entity. These can be consistent with all observations. Pragmatically, they aren't useful, because they don't allow one to make predictions of unobserved phenomena (without additional assumptions as the the nature of the simulation, etc.). But there's no valid reason to say they aren't true.
Note that this is analogous to arguing whether the standard model of physics or string theory is correct. We can't validly choose between them, because they both can be made to make predictions consistent with all existing observations. And BOTH have large amounts of "gosh numbers" that are required to have particular values not because of any underlying theory, but only to match observations.
When making practical predictions, I usually use Newton's physics, even though I know that it is "false", because it's close enough to being right. So being practically useful isn't proof of truth. NASA also uses Newton's physics for obital calculations, so it's quite close to being correct.
But when one is trying to determine truth, one needs to work with the ensemble of all ideas consistent with current observations....and then add a large helping of uncertainty.
Actually, I am. But only as a part of an ensemble of other theories. So if "Last Thursdayism" recommends a course of action that the perponderance of the ensemble recommend against, I don't perform the action.
Well, in a theoretic sense, that's what I'm arguing in favor of. As a computational short cut I use the model recommended by the Standard Model. But that doesn't imply certainty, what it implies that that most of the models recommend the same course of action as the Standard Model in most circumstances. Think of it as the Heisenberg interpretation of Quantum Mechanics applied to cosmogony.
And when I think about it, that approach is rather wierd because when I think of Quantum Mechanics, etc. I prefer the EWG Multi-World interpretation. Perhaps it's because there's no rigorous framework for cosmogony. It's hard to validate the Multi-World intepretation unless you have a mathematical framework to validate it against, but it's easy to say "There's no basis for choosing". Of course the actual Heisenberg analogy would say "There can't be a basis for choosing", but I don't think that's totally clear. OTOH, since one of the possibilities in the hat is that the universe isn't logically consistent,...
Slashdot Mirror
That certainly used to be the case, and the laws haven't changed. But I believe that there have been some court decisions that have found people guilty of copyright violation purely from downloading. Something about "you copied it onto your computer disk, and that was a violation of the law".
For that matter, I believe that there were a couple of decisions a decade or so ago that said you committed a fresh violation every time you accessed it.
"All I know is what I read in the papers." IANAL, etc.
Think about self-parking cars. And the next generation of tanks.
IIUC, they can ignore the copyright internally in Antigua. And it's legal for them to offer it on the web, from servers located within the country. But this doesn't mean it's legal for you to download the wares (N.B.: not warez in this case) unless you are operating within Antigua.
Suspending the copyright on US goods within Antigua doesn't permit you to import them into some place where those copyrights aren't suspended.
OTOH, IANAL. I could well be wrong. But that's my reading of what it means.
Yeah, but it's slightly wrong. It's not power that corrupts, it's lack of consequences.
Of course, it's often hard to observe this distinction, because even honorable people with power tend to act to shield themselves from the results of their actions. Nobody likes to be blamed or punished, no matter how much they might warrant it, and also no matter how honorable their intentions.
If I'm understanding recent findings correctly, free radicals are probably NOT related to aging, and may be a defense mechanism against bacteria.
OTOH, that was an isolated study, so perhaps it's wrong. Still, I'd be hesitant about any certainty right now. (In particular, high levels of anti-oxidants in the blood were associated with shorter life-spans. Of course we're talking mice here.)
More specifically, a CNC machine normally doesn't have any intelligence, so it's not a robot, any more than a telefactor is. And telefactors often have MORE internal intelligence than CNC machines. They need to avoid causing harm by accident to either themselves or others. CNC machines often just operate out of ROM, with essentially no state. (Well, they do have a tiny bit of state, but not much. And this one might not need any.)
I really despise the way the term "robot" is being abused for anything mechanical. A robot car is reasonable for a self-driving, or even self-parking car. But applying it to a remote controlled arm is like calling a car with power steering a robot. And the fact that the actions are pre-programmed doesn't improve things. Not unless you want to call a thermostatically controlled heater a robot.
I don't think you read, or perhaps understood, what the blogger was saying, *OR* what the original report was saying. They don't appear to be in actual disagreement.
The original paper was reporting on how a particular climate model responded to the data. The blogger was criticizing that class of models. They may well *BOTH* be correct.
Personally, I don't really have an opinion on that particular issue. I'm more focused on different kinds of evidence, and I'm also not a climate scientist. To me it appears that the current evidence indicates that lowball estimation of the amount of climate chage are wrong, basically because the ice has been melting faster than predicted even by most "alarmists". But I'm willing to admit that I have a high degree of uncertainty. Someone who convinced me that they had a reasonable explanation AND that global warming was slowing would be possible. I just haven't encountered any such.
Additionally, I'm well aware that the politicians censored many of the more extreme predictions out of the official report as being too alarming. So I'm dubious about how accurate it's "conservative" predictions are. Some of the excluded predictions have already been shown to be more accurate than the included ones. (Mind you, there's a wide variation. E.g. I don't really expect the sea level to rise by 500 meters.)
Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort"
OK, but they have threatened patent action against open source. Do you REALLY believe they won't attack Mono if they find it in their interest? They will, whether you believe it now or not. Don't be naive.
Actually, that's wrong. It was in the very early days of Mono, but a Microsoft vice-president (whatever that means) announced in the press that ".NET is our technology and we will defend it" in a context that was clearly a threat to Mono. There may have been no follow-up, but it was said, and I never saw a retraction.
I think the last time the US rolled out tanks against it's own citizens was during the 1960's. In the south. But i could have missed a few occasions. (Sometime between "Little Rock" and "I have a dream!", but I can't pin it down any closer after this much time.)
N.B.: When they did it, most citizens outside the area approved. (Or at least most people I knew did.) I don't know whether this is also true in China, but it could well be.
An EXCELLENT point.
OTOH, whoever your ISP is also has all your e-mails. And so does whatever governmental official was curious about them. (No warrant required, all ISPs appear to be compliant.)
But *WHY* did you give them your password? Not that it's difficult for a large organization to crack any normal machine, but why make it THAT trivial?
Sorry, but I've even heard suspicions about British software.
Nothing wrong with your point that it's bigotted, but China isn't the only country to have people bigotted against them. And I'm not sure they deserve any less skepticism than any of the others. Which is why I prefer GPL software. At least in principle, that can be verified to be honest.
That may be so, but why did they sue Lego rather than George Lucas? I think they were just looking for a soft target rather than actually offended, and because of that I hope they lose big. Say having to pay the defendants legal costs, and court costs, and a percentage for a frivolous lawsuit.
I'd say oblivious, and deserves a -5, not a +5.
The developers aren't the only people at risk here. Anyone who checks out the development tree is at risk. And just having the source code doesn't automatically protect you. You aren't very likely to go over the code with a fine toothed comb. And even if you did, it would be quite easy to miss an inserted "mal-feature". (I can't really call it a bug, since I'm thinking of code that was doing what it was intended to do, just not what *you* intended it to do.)
Yes. They are turned into silicic acid. Which, of course, can then be converted back into silicon nano-paritcles, with the input of energy.
So the question becomes "how efficient is the recharging?". Which probably can't be done at home, so don't think of it as a rechargable battery, but rather as a recycleable one. Sort of like the vanadium flow battery, or that other one based around boron (or was it barium?). But silicon is a lot more available. So if the process is reasonably efficient...
I, personally, would say she is engaging in carefully constructed slander which is probably just this side of illegal. Not that she would be in any danger no matter what she said. He's dead, and precedent says that you can't slander the dead.
Nothing "alleged" about it. If they are copying people's files without permission, they are engaging in copyright infringement. Perhaps the law has some legal twist to the definition of common words that would mean this isn't legally true, but it would be true under the normal common meanings of the words.
N.B.: Even if the items were put on the hard drive by the creators, this would not change things...unless those creator gave permission. (And, IIRC, the permission needs to be in writing.) And whenever you write a note, you own the copyright to that note.
What is alleged is that some of the files infringed copyright when they were copied to the hard disk in the first place. Which is a different, though related, matter.
Well, there's often a big difference between what is claimed and what is real.
What you're missing is the measurement of frequency that allows position to be calculated. That depends on relativity, but I can't remember whether it's special or general relativity. Look up " The Mossbauer Effect". It's not done with simple triangulation.
Actually, wormholes are quite probable on the extreme micro scale. Unfortunately, I believe the distance through them is usually longer than the distance in normal space between the end points. And they require bracing with something having negative energy to be stable at larger than the extreme micro scale. Also, there are indications that they are quite likely to collapse if something tries to travel through them. So you need more bracing.
Now states with negative energy are possible, indeed, the Casimir effect is based around them. But they, also, tend to prefer extremely small separations of distance.
I think that wormholes are much more plausible as a communications mechanism, and if you can catch one, and keep it stable, they would provide a means for trans-time communication. (But you need to accelerate one end of the worm-hole while keeping the other stable, and then bring the other end back after sufficient relativistic time-dialation. And they might not be stable through that...but perhaps they could be stabilized. The only questions are:
1) would the speed of light within the worm-hole match that outside it?
2) could you keep the wormhole stable during the process (without stretching the connection length).
Still, if you do everything just right, you might be able to send photons down it and receive an answer.before you ask the question. The causal implications are very strange, but, IIUC, they are consistent with the standard model of quantum physics. (For a fictional treatment of this, see "Timemaster" by Forward. It's fiction, but he's careful with his physics, and was a professional physicist.)
When things like this are consistent with physics as known, don't be too quick to presume that just because we can't do something now, it can't be done.
John W. Campbell, Jr. once wrote a story about starships that travelled by controlled uncertainty.
A.E. Van Voght, however, liked his ships to move by similarity transmission.
No, no. Light has a constant velocity. What you should mean is:
(2) The faster you go, the more energeticly the light will hit the front (including what you catch up to), less energetic photons will hit the back (when your bubble of space time is moving faster than the speed of light, you'll be outrunning it), and the less time something coming in from the side will have to actually cross the threshold..
And actually this is a major problem, because the front will be essentially converted into X-rays of high energy. (Or, if you like, gamma radiation.) Light from behind would lengthen towards radio waves, and perhaps beyond...though as you point out, if you're actually going faster than light none of this radiation will actually impinge.
I'm not sure what would happen to light from the sides. There's no obvious reason for it to experience frequency transformation, but it should become extremely weak in any one place. It would probably be a modified version of both before and behind, as you are approaching it at a shallow angle at first, and as you pass it you are departing at a shallow angle. So I would expect a streak, but so dopplered that little of it could be seen. And also so attenuated that little of it could be seen.
OTOH: This all depends on how large a bubble of space you are surrounding yourself with, and on whether the space is moving with you, or whether a wave of change is propagating through space. If the latter, then you shouldn't see any noticible change, because the space surrounding you, containing the propagating photons, is also changing. In that case, the effects would occur at the edge of the bubble, so you'd still see the "bright light" up ahead (bright in the X-ray region of the spectrum or higher), but elsewhere things would look normal. Because you're constantly tranforming the space around you, but not carrying it with you. And it's not empty.
FWIW, I've never figured out the details, just that it would be unreasonably dangerous. High energy X-rays are not your friends.
If wormholes are feasible, that may be a much safer way to travel. (Even there things get tricky, as you need negative energy supports, but those exist at least at the extremely micro scale. But nowhere do I see sign of a protection against high energy X-rays.) Similarly for higher dimensional short-cuts other than wormholes. There may be really bad problems, but it's less sure that they are insurmountable. High energy X-rays, however, split atoms that they encounter, even light ones, much less molecules. A high enough intensity of high energy X-rays would probably convert any atoms in their field of action into hydrogem.
Well, that's one reason I generally use GPL software. The license used by the company often wouldn't impact me, but understanding their license sure would. If there's an acceptable GPL alternative, I automatically prefer it BECAUSE I already know what that license says.
N.B.: For some others the BSD or MIT license serves the same purpose, but I find more software under the GPL license.
FWIW, I prefer about 4 different licenses for different purposes. And I both resent and resist using any license I don't already know.
FWIW, if you install Java, I think it auto-installs in the browser. Otherwise I don't know how it got there. And I use Debian. (OTOH, I've also installed a lot of packages. So it could have been something else that installed it.)
FWIW, the Java that was installed was OpenJDK, or perhaps Iced Tea. Not the Oracle flavor. But when I checked IceWeasel it was installed. (Actually, it's still installed. I just deactivated it.)
That said, I'm always dubious about Java. I understand why it's a lot more popular than C/C++, but Java seems neither as easy as the scripting languages nor as powerful as the compiled languages. The main thing it seemed to have going for it was being pushed by a large friendly company. Now the "friendly" has disappeared. (Oracle sure isn't Sun.)
To rule out an idea because you can't test it is an indefeasible bias in favor of your current ideas, which also can't be tested WRT the differences in assumptions of the other "untestable" ideas.
One may argue that a certains set of ideas is more pragmatically useful than other ideas that are consistent with the observations, but that's not the same as arguing that they are true. We may be living in a computer simulation. It may be such a limited simulation that you are the only real entity. These can be consistent with all observations. Pragmatically, they aren't useful, because they don't allow one to make predictions of unobserved phenomena (without additional assumptions as the the nature of the simulation, etc.). But there's no valid reason to say they aren't true.
Note that this is analogous to arguing whether the standard model of physics or string theory is correct. We can't validly choose between them, because they both can be made to make predictions consistent with all existing observations. And BOTH have large amounts of "gosh numbers" that are required to have particular values not because of any underlying theory, but only to match observations.
When making practical predictions, I usually use Newton's physics, even though I know that it is "false", because it's close enough to being right. So being practically useful isn't proof of truth. NASA also uses Newton's physics for obital calculations, so it's quite close to being correct.
But when one is trying to determine truth, one needs to work with the ensemble of all ideas consistent with current observations....and then add a large helping of uncertainty.
Actually, I am. But only as a part of an ensemble of other theories. So if "Last Thursdayism" recommends a course of action that the perponderance of the ensemble recommend against, I don't perform the action.
Well, in a theoretic sense, that's what I'm arguing in favor of. As a computational short cut I use the model recommended by the Standard Model. But that doesn't imply certainty, what it implies that that most of the models recommend the same course of action as the Standard Model in most circumstances. Think of it as the Heisenberg interpretation of Quantum Mechanics applied to cosmogony.
And when I think about it, that approach is rather wierd because when I think of Quantum Mechanics, etc. I prefer the EWG Multi-World interpretation. Perhaps it's because there's no rigorous framework for cosmogony. It's hard to validate the Multi-World intepretation unless you have a mathematical framework to validate it against, but it's easy to say "There's no basis for choosing". Of course the actual Heisenberg analogy would say "There can't be a basis for choosing", but I don't think that's totally clear. OTOH, since one of the possibilities in the hat is that the universe isn't logically consistent, ...