🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov6.175022.13136@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
> 
>As the rest of my post indicated, that wasn't the part that I don't
>buy!!  I can imagine a theory that predicts mixing angles, but not a
>theory that predicts the speed of light (in any exciting sense - see my
>previous post).

Why not?   What makes the speed of light any more fundamental than the charge
of an electron, or the electroweak mixing angle?  And even if it's more 
fundamental, what prevents you, in principle, from developing a theory which
predicts the speed of light? 

We're getting a little philosophical here, but I would argue as follows:

The speed of light is what it is for *some* reason, or it would have a
different value!  (I know I'll get flamed for this one.)  I expect that
this reason will ultimately be accessible to us.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas