the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't work for me - specifically at the bit where it rejects counterfactual definiteness. (I know I'm not alone in this camp, just gotta articulate my own specific posture.) from where you and I are standing, we *can* make definite statements about the unknown and its presence/behavior, without defining the contents of the unknown. we define *the way knowables emerge from the unknown*. we're looking at ontology and epistemology from a different angle here.
copenhagen throws the relational baby out with the definitional bathwater, and the baby has .. well, you know how parents can understand their own kid's babel-babble?
---
see also (with moon-related apologies to einstein): "footfall"