> The rest of your post is discussing philosophy,

I'm trying not to be philosophical and wondering if by now we have enough data so that we can talk about purpose without being philosophical. Sure, that we have that much data now is a long shot!

> What makes you think it was deliberate?

It looks like it might be a deliberate case of our being denied information that might let us see behind the curtain, that is, see more of how the universe is working.

> (that predicts that no information can propagate faster than the speed of light).

How we get from special relativity to that, I want to check out in detail.

Also there is the EPR "spooky action at a distance". Sure, the usual statement is that this does not permit communications faster than the speed of light, but I've seen no careful, detailed argument and want to check this out.

Also, for what I started with, a photon through a beam splitter, the wave function then in two parts, and then later the wave function parts separated by some large distance, if we have photo detectors for each part of the wave function, then the usual argument/assumption is that at most one detector will get a signal from that photon. So, instantly, across light years, the other half of the wave function is destroyed. But in principle we could detect when the detector got a signal because the other half of the wave function would suddenly not exist and would not have its effect on gravity. We're talking the gravity of half a wave function of a photon; right, small. But in principle ....

> Quantum mechanics isn't dice rolling. It is true that there cannot be a local hidden-variables theory of QM, but QM still has incredible predictive power when discussing the probabilities of experiments.

Two high energy photons cross paths, there at the same
time. Maybe they generate an electron-positron pair, and maybe they don't. That's a roll of the dice.

> It is possible in the future that a non-probabilistic view of QM will emerge, it just cannot be both hidden-variables and local.

I saw the Bell's inequality part of the MIT introductory QM lectures. After that lecture, I wanted to see a much, much more careful presentation. Yes, yes, yes, I've heard what 99% of the physics community believes; I took more than enough physics to see how such beliefs are passed out. What I want to know is what the heck the truth is, including about far out possibilities, and for that at least I want the arguments, and the math, about the old stuff, solid.

> If ants could think, they would probably think they're the most amazing thing they know of in the universe. The only reason we think we're so amazing is because we have no competitor to compare to.

Not quite the "only" thing: We have axiomatic set theory as our foundation of math, and there we have pushed hard on its rough edges, e.g., what is decidable. Likely ET can't do better.

Then building on set theory, we have math, and just from the Whitehead-Russell stuff we know how that can be verified by just mechanical means, e.g., just symbol substitution. And we know that some new results can be obtained also just by mechanical means. And I have to doubt that ET can do better in the framework -- for specific math results, sure, ET can be 1 million years ahead of us.

So, basically, we seem to know how solid reasoning goes. I'm guessing that ET can't do better on the techniques of solid reasoning, that is, ET can come up with terrific theorems we have not found yet but is still limited to the same framework I just outlined.

And, ET will have seen all our basic physics and will have to agree with at least 99% of it, no matter how sloppy the MIT QM course is. ET can't disagree with that 99%. For that part of physics, we and ET are in agreement.

So, in some fundamental ways, at least the frameworks, methods, paradigms, we are about as good as there can be.

That's some of why we look special.

And it's some of why we seem to be approaching limits on what we or ET can know about the universe. So, if there is a purpose, then we are seeing about all the evidence there can be about what that purpose might be.

So far, we don't see a purpose. But I was asking if there is some more info that lets us start to guess a purpose?

> The reason it's 3K is that it has been cooling since the big bang and that's the temperature it happens to be today. If it were any other temperature, would that also be a clue?

My point about the 3 K radiation is not that it is not 2 K (as apparently eventually it will be) or 4 K (as apparently it once was) but that it is to us for photons a wall we can't see past. Also the timing is curious: 3 K is darned cold, and it took some astounding detectors to study it; in some years, the temperature will be 2 K, 1 K, etc., and need still more astounding detectors. So, at 3 K, we've come along at about the right time. When big, seemingly independent things agree in time, it looks suspicious. So, we have to suspect that the wall was deliberate. I'm willing to set that guess aside because people are talking about seeing gravitational waves from before the time of the origin of the 3 K radiation -- so the 3 K radiation is only partly a wall. And by analyzing the 3 K radiation, e.g., taking the spacial power spectrum and understanding the acoustic aspects, maybe we can get some clues about before that radiation.

Still, to me, that there is this wall of 3 K radiation, in surprising senses uniform, is one heck of a situation. I'm not, but some people got all wound up and called it the face of God! If there is a purpose, maybe from the shockingly surprising 3 K radiation we can get a clue. Uh, maybe shocking conclusions, e.g., a purpose, need shocking data so that from shocking data maybe we should look for shocking conclusions, e.g., a purpose!