![i-d8869b14090fe3d756422aaab7693204-Darwin.v.Particle.jpg](http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/wp-content/blogs.dir/389/files/2012/04/i-d8869b14090fe3d756422aaab7693204-Darwin.v.Particle.jpg)
I don't even know what to say. Darwin won. It was won, how to put this, how to put this, it was won a little more than handily. Particle didn't even score. Darwin won 142 to 0.
WF: [speaking to the camera, microphone in hand] Let me step into the press conference. Not many folks left. I should be able to get a good spot. I have no idea what I just saw out there. Particle had been so dominant, so free-flowing in defeating General Relativity. I don't know what happened over these past months, during this game. But what a debacle here today.
P:
WF: Me? You're pointing to me?
[whispering to the camera] Okay, I've got the first question.
P:
WF: Good. And yeah, I gotta question. Uhhh, what the hell Particle? That's my question. What the hell?
P:
WF: I couldn't even see you out there on the court, that's what I mean.
P:
WF: Wow. It was embarrassing for your coach, for your boosters, for the entire edifice of twentieth-century physics. To just roll over like that in the face of the Darwin juggernaut? Gonna explain yourself?
P:
WF: Oh give me a break. You're gonna pull that duality crap on us?
P:
WF: Ha! To the contrary, that couldn't be more predictable.
P:
WF: You know what I mean - not your location, but that you'd go with that explanation. A bit too predictable. That's entirely predictable. Kelvin could've predicted that.
P:
WF: Yes. That's what I'm saying. I know your location and how fast you're moving to the hoop. I know it, definitively. I can tell you both of them, every time. We've got those new cameras, I know you've seen them, they swoop down over the court.
P:
WF: You and what army? An army of waves too? You're gonna sit there and tell me...
P:
WF: -- No, you let me finish, you let me finish --
P:
WF: - you're gonna sit there, with a straight light absorption reading, and tell me you were a wave the entire game? That's why nobody could see you?
P:
WF: Nobody?
P:
WF: Well, sure, they aimed the camera at the top of the key, we all know you hang out in 3-point land for almost the whole game...
P:
WF: Yes we did, yes we did. Our guys measured it in all the other games. You already played, what, four games? We have a boatload of measurements to support us.
P:
WF: Give me a break.
P:
WF: Oh come on, give me a break! You did not move just because we pointed the camera at that spot!
P:
WF: What are you suggesting? What are -
P:
WF: --yeah, right. Just because we were looking for you there, you changed your behavior right then? Just because we were looking?
P:
WF: Yes, I've seen it.
P:
WF: But that doesn't make sense. No, no, Copenhagen was a fine Play. Nobody's saying that. It's just -
P:
WF: -- Christ, dude, let me finish - it's a fine play, but it's just a play.
P:
WF: I don't care if Frayn consulted you on it. I said I loved it, I enjoyed the play. It's a fine play.
P:
WF: No, no that isn't it all. What I'm suggesting is--
P:
WF: --what I'm suggesting is that you cannot tell me you failed to score during the entire game because of Copenhagen.
P:
WF: In fact, you're clearly confusing the play Copenhagen, set in the 1940s, with the Copenhagen Interpretation, from the 1920s.
P:
WF: Oh for god's sake, I told you I found the play very enjoyable, very rich, a wonderful treatment of a complicated issue. That's not the point. You're dissembling.
P:
WF: But that doesn't mean it explains scientifically why you didn't score the entire game! The play was trying to do something else!
P:
WF: Me? Me?!! I'm not trying to take anything away from it. I'm the one who said it was a great play. I'm just saying you're not gonna stand there and give me that "I was a wave the whole game, that's why you didn't see me" crap and then go on--
P:
WF: You see, this is why everyone's so pissed, you won't let us get a word in-
P:
WF: This is why everyone's so hacked. I was gonna say, you're not gonna sit there and give me that line, and then go on and say, just watch Copenhagen, it's all in there. That doesn't even makes sense.
P:
WF: No. You. You go look it up. You're confusing Copenhagen with the Copenhagen Interpretation. That's what I'm saying.
P:
WF: No, you shut up! You're the Particle! You should know this better than me!
P:
WF: [laughing] Yeah, right.
P:
WF: [laughing] Whatever, dude. You end this press conference. Sure. You end it. Like it was helping anything.
P:
WF: Well, I'm hanging out with Darwin at the Championship game, that's where I'm headed.
P:
WF: Loser.
- Log in to post comments
That particle's behavior just can't scale up to the level Darwin was playing at - you might be able to get away with that sort of stuff at Quantum High, but not in the macroscopic leagues. Darwin v. Einstein, now that would have been a game. Give me Evolution v. Relativity, and I'll be a monkey's uncle.