Once again--as always--give the points and bet on Big Al.
Long--time readers know where I stand: give the points and bet on Big Al.
It’s true that we live in a quantum Universe, so it makes sense, intuitively, to ask whether there isn’t some sort of hidden variable underpinning all of this quantum “weirdness.” After all, many have philosophized over whether these quantum notions that this uncertainty is unavoidable is inherent, meaning that it’s an inextricable property of nature itself, or whether there’s an underlying cause that we simply haven’t been able to pinpoint. The latter approach, favored by many great minds throughout history (including Einstein), is commonly known as a hidden variables assumption.
Ed Driscoll at Instapundit collects some links that highlight 1) the utter incoherence of the administration's energy policy (see also Michael Shellenberger, "Why Biden's Attacks On Energy Are 'Absolutely Insane'"), and 2) the dopiness of this post's title statement.
Note that 17 Nobel Laureates in Economics didn't cover themselves in glory either.
Because this agenda invests in long-term economic capacity and will enhance the ability of more Americans to participate productively in the economy, it will ease longer-term inflationary pressures.
Pro tips: 1) as noted here before, always give the points and bet on Big Al [Einstein] and 2) ditto for Uncle Miltie.
I hadn't seen before this interpretation of the famous statement by Big Al.
"The present has a special status for us humans – our past seems to no longer exists, and our future is yet to come into existence. But according to how physicists and philosophers interpret Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the present isn’t at all special. The past and the future are just as real as the present - they all coexist and you could, theoretically, travel to them. But, argues Dean Buonomano, this interpretation of Einstein’s theory might have more to do with the way our brains evolved to think of time in a similar way to space, than with the nature of time."
Sorry, I won't be holding my breath. I don't be against Big Al.
It's general relativity versus "dark gravity". Usually I'd tell you to give the points and bet on Big Al, but I think we should sit this one out.
"The process of arriving at what Einstein called his general theory of relativity involved a struggle of eight years and a combination of extraordinary scientific insight and sheer hard work."
They were dopes. Once again the rule is this: give the points and always bet on Big Al.
Same old, same old: give the points and bet on Big Al.