This makes me happy too!  I went to conferences back in the early 90&#x27;s and they were a lot of fun, watershed moment in my life. I hope you have a great time, you&#x27;ll meet a lot of interesting and good people.  I remember our exchange back in August, I&#x27;m glad you followed up on it and it sounds like you are really learning. I&#x27;ve been studying Rand for over 25 years and I recently reread PWNI and learned some new things and I am amazed at her insight.<p>Regarding my comment on the article, it was really just an &quot;excited utterance&quot; when I realized that the &quot;shut up and calculate&quot; and &quot;bury the contradictions&quot; tactics in Physics had run its course.  I really wasn&#x27;t looking to engage and offer Rand as the alternative to Kant.  Physicists really want answers and seem more open to questioning their basic premises, including the premise that Philosophy is worthless. I feel like there is &quot;revolution in the air&quot; so to speak.<p>I too like the Bayesian approach to probability especially the work of E.T. Jaynes.  I bought his book and though I didn&#x27;t fully understand it, I like the idea of probability as a generalized logic of science.  In his framework the problem of induction becomes when is it valid to conclude a probability is equal to 1.0 not 0.999....  This is the key because the latter is what leaves the door open to the skeptics.<p>(I previously tried to PM you but the email bounced, I will try again).