If I may. We do so because we cannot account for such undetectable 'things' except perhaps as some randomness in the system that we can observe.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> But as a rule-of-thumb it is better to tentatively assume things we >>> cannot see don't exist. >>> >>> >> > I meant to ask: Why? > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en > . > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
