Well done, GfS, you have proved conclusively that you know how to copy annd paste from the web. You don't, however, demonstrate the least understanding of what you post.

You see,I am well aware of the work of Rod Swenson, whose words you have copied, and whilst his Law of Maximum Entropy (which builds on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) is interesting, it's not entirely relevant to this debate. Now I'm no physicist and don't pretend to understand all the explanations that Swenson puts forward, but to comment on the Cartesian part - if you are a follower of Descartes, you are somewhat behind the times philosophically. In particular, you might like to delve into Husserl's ideas of phenomenology (e.g. whilst Descartes discards 'perception', Husserl asserts that it is 'intentional')and his thoughts on 'The Me Behind the Scenes' which finally put to bed Bishop Berkeley's notions (and, by implication, those of Kant). OK, that's a bit of a simplistic, sweeping statement, but you get my gist. Alfred North Whitehead, of course, was pursuing similar lines of thought at the time, outlined in his 'Symbolism, Its Meaning and Effect'. To put it in a nutshell (which even you might grasp, GfS): whilst Descartes asserted that 'I think, therefore I am', what Husserl is saying is that you first need to ask 'who is this "I" '. Once you grasp that it's pretty simple, really.