Was Einstein too optimistic? I’m beginning to suspect that this philosophical view is nonsense. There seem to be many aspects of the physical world that are really difficult to understand and fully accept. But then lots of people grasp stuff better than I do. I’ve been trying to devise a way of finding out if people, especially those with a philosophical approach, agree that Einstein’s statement was justified or not. I’ve here listed in an attempted neutral sort of way some things I’ve have battled with and failed to fully grasp at one time or another. The list I’ve compiled is incomplete (I’m puzzled about many more things than I list) but because this is a physics forum, the list biased that way. Here is a list of eight puzzling aspects of the physical world that some folk seem to comprehend and accept. But some people don’t. How do they strike you? 1. When ‘elementary particles’ like electrons pass one at a time through two slits and impact a screen as localised particles. Yet their separate impacts are distributed like diffracted waves. 2. Quantum systems are supposed to exist as a probabilistic superposition of states until somebody measures one of their observable properties. The system may then 'collapse' into a single state, so preserving the separate integrity of system and observer. But perhaps there are multiple physical realities that combine a superposed state of system and observer. 3. Every observer experiences a (possibly unique) physical world in which distance and time (and therefore speed) are operational concepts personal to that observer. There is no such thing as a unique and universal ‘physical reality’ out there. 4. If you travel to Alpha Centauri and back and your watch tells you one second has elapsed, you will find that your twin, who stayed at home, has aged more than you have. 5. It’s not possible to accelerate matter until it can be measured to be traveling faster than light. Therefore kinetic energy must be thought of as stored mass that increases with measured 'speed'. Mass and energy are taken to be equivalent, as a working hypothesis. 6. Once upon a time -- very long ago -- the universe was a perfectly isotropic and homogeneous, perhaps spatially infinite and ultra high-energy thing. 7. The biological phenomenon of Batesian_mimicry in say, butterflies, that makes some of them look as if they have been exquisitely designed to look dangerous, evolved by pure happenstance. 8. The odd social behaviour of Australian Bowerbirds and their fascination with the colour blue, is hardwired stuff. Their behaviour evolved in a Darwinian way, just as sociobiologists suppose many of our own behaviours did. A scoring scheme along the lines I’ve set out below might be a way of seeing how positive or negative your opinion of Einstein’s statement is. I’ve arbitrarily assigned these scores for possible views. 4 : I understand and accept this aspect of nature, fully and fundamentally 3 : I accept it as the reasonable justified view of experts: 2 : I believe it because in textbooks or by teachers I’m told it’s so: 1 : It’s probably correct but details need amplifying or modifying: 0 : No comment; I don’t know, or the proposition is badly put: -1: It’s probably wrong -- at least it’s not the whole truth or all the truth. -2: It’s just the way things are, as created by Someone. -3: I have my own theory about this. -4: This is simply incredible. It’s nonsense. Any comments? Or things to add to the list? Or a different way of scoring such a list?