Although the attempt is ridicule, I respond gently that if this were a serious
attempt to provide care and it worked for you that I would not knock it nor
ridicule it.

It would be nice to see a like response from you sometime.

I would share with you the following:

The Copenhagen model that Heissenburg supported and that has since proven
accurate has, at its very core, the concept that all observation is subjective
because all observation modifies the thing observed. The classic two-slit

photon experiment proves this. Hence, physics would indicate that the
experience of the individual and the observation of the individual of the event
changes it, even though we believe that what we are seeing is "pure science."

The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics clearly illustrates the
subjectivity of observation. You can know the position of a particle or the
momentum of a particle, but you cannot know both. The more you know of one, the
less certain you are of the other. It is true in the macrocosm as well, it is
just not as obvious.

Ridicule of another’s positon when one has previously been a science fundy
oneself tends to create the enigma of Schrodinger’s cat - is it dead or alive
after the release of the poison. Perhaps you’d like to enter the box and find
out? Me, I’d rather postulate.

Gently, gently, I ask you to realize that there is more than one way to
interpret the observable universe and that science fundamenalism can be just as
flawed as any other fundamentalism.

As to your Auntie, always honor your ancestors for they transmit their wisdom to
you and make the rough places straight before you. If not for them, we would
not be here, and if you created her just to ridicule her, then that is a
sadness, indeed.

Cheers!
Marsha