Dear Marion,

Thank you once more for your tolerance of my unconventional
exposition of unconventional ideas. I have made additional
notes on the "laws" of science. That this topic interests
me, doesn't mean that it should interest you, and I won't
be offended if you skip to the end of the letter where I
try to address your question about the challenges that have
been perplexing me.

This morning, as I awoke I flirted with the hypothesis
that there might be a qualitative difference between the
laws of man, i.e. of government, and the laws of nature,
i.e. scientific laws, that scientific laws were inherently
more compelling than the obviously fickle and arbitrary
laws of the state. But, on further thought, I concluded
that the proposed distinction is far from fundamental, the
consequence of educational and perhaps cultural influences.
There is indeed a large population for whom a law is a law,
with no distinction between the compulsions of society and
the compulsions of (other than human) nature. As corollary,
I find it interesting to reflect on the corrosive effect of
"education" on the primitive, intuitive meaning of words.
There is something to be gained by eschewing the subtleties
and sophistications of philology and hermeneutics, relying
instead on the simple, coarse and unadulterated and often
inscrutable meaning (or absence of meaning) of the language
a meaning which I must accept as the only accessible key to 
the interpretation of my thoughts. In any event, to consider 
the meaning and the substance of societal laws as prototypical
is a useful exercise when one searches for the (ultimate) 
meaning of the "laws" of nature.

The completeness and conclusiveness of natural laws, far from
inherent, is but an imputed projection, an illusion which
dissipates as soon as one inspects any one of those many
"laws of nature" which present themselves as paragons of
trustworthiness and reliability, as embodiment of truth.
What remains is a maelstrom of uncertainties if not of
contradictions, shrouded in an opaque fog of ambiguity.
The scientists to whom our culture pledges fealty are the
priests of the contemporary religion, who by their
intellectual virtuosity are adept at reconciling, or at
least concealing, the incongruities of the faith.

The explanation for the predominance of science is its
effectiveness. The pragmatist, the instrumentalist finds
scientific facts to be "true" because they create in the
scientific community a powerful network of cogitation,
effective thought which enables scientists to be productive
and to create the substrate for a technology that has
transformed society. All this notwithstanding the
circumstance that no ultimate truth, no immutable law
has ever been or will ever be found.

===================

When you inquire about the challenges that I find
discouraging, you're like a physician taking a medical
history, asking about aches and pains which are best
ignored or forgotten. Reciting them, dwelling on them,
describing them, has no therapeutic benefit. Bureaucratic
harrassment such as the Province of Ontario refusing to
provide me with a death certificate for Margrit's friend
Harold Atkinson who died in 2004 and whom she had named
as beneficiary of two of her retirement accounts; my
broker Morgan Stanley charging a commission of $760
for buying 2000 shares of AT&T for my pension plan,
a charge about one hundred times as what Schwab or
Fidelity would charge, the repairs and improvements
that need to be done to the houses in Belmont and
Konnarock, not to mention completing the Nantucket
construction, the energy for which is probably beyond
me, if not now, then by the time the court issues its
decision. I don't complain and I'm not asking for
sympathy. Just answering your question.

Jochen