AtDTDA: 18 the unaturally shaky quality of present day "reality" [517/518]

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

I guess if I were to place a large banner over the magic trick of 
the Stupendica's bilocation, the headline might read:

           the unaturally shaky quality of present day "reality"

. . . .'cause, uh, this can't be happenin' man. . . .

Kinda like the time machine scene from "Nick Danger, Third Eye":

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/hcyb2.mp3

which, unfortunately, is not on that mp3, but does have a cop exclaim:

          "I'm seein' two of everything but me!"

Feel free to consider this a bit of Bibliomancy. I asked myself, "how shaky 
is our present day 'reality'?", and wondered if anyone else might be 
concerned. . . .

          "Dana Perino announced today that the three headed beast 
          that follows Dick Cheney around is not 'real'. When pressed 
          further for comment she said, "I guess it all depends on what 
          you mean by 'real'."

http://tinyurl.com/3xeh4r

Googled 'shaky quality of present day "reality"' under 'news', got back:

          . . . .You just try to understand Einstein's paper first 
          published on "Annalen der physiks" titled "on the 
          electrodynamics of moving bodies" without a firm 
          understanding on both newtonian theory of movement 
          and maxwellian ecuations: you will see it doesn't matter 
          it was published by 1905, when your "copyright overlords" 
          were not so strong, everything was published and proper 
          citations were both accesible and properly in place. And 
          please remember it's not even a very hard paper; currently 
          any minimally cute 16 year old boy should understand its 
          maths without many problems. But still, you either already 
          have the maths and the underlying theories already grasped 
          or no matter how many citations or how free, the article will 
          still seem Chinese to you (unless you are Chinese, in which 
          case it will seem archaic Saxon to you).

          "The only place this is an issue for is for those who believe that 
          science leads to a definition of reality"

          I must say "bullshit". Science *is* our definition of reality. It can 
          be controversial how much our definition of reality pairs the 
          "real reality" or if there's in fact a "real reality", but there's no 
          doubt science *is* our definition of reality. Only this assumption 
          allows even you to not think that the seven lane bridge you 
          cross to go to job is not suspended over the river by any 
          magic force.

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/25/211256

          But a modern surgeon practising evidence-based, humane and 
          ethical medicine must have a sound grounding in some of the 
          fundamental principles of philosophy. I shall illustrate these 
          principles, drawing on 40 years experience as a surgeon 
          within the National Health Service (NHS) and, in particular, 
          my specialist practice in the diagnosis and management of 
          breast cancer. I will then attempt to explain how government 
          interventions imposed on our practice often have the opposite 
          outcomes to those intended.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3910/

          What is deeply disturbing about the Ahmadinejad controversy is 
          how the white noise surrounding it is contributing to the spurious 
          idea that Iran, an undeniable sponsor of terrorism, is, as such, in 
          some way linked to the 9/11 attacks. Nothing could be further 
          from the truth and from reality.

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid48109.aspx

Hard science [carbon dated to 1905, no less], medicine/goverment 
[drugs/'reality']. 'Terrorism'. All pretty Pynchonian, if you ask me.