It seems that just by knowing results of a measurement we determine its outcome, determine state of system and, by implication, state of Universe as a whole. This notion is so counter-intuitive that it fostered a raging debate which has been on going for more than 7 decades now.

But, can we turn question (and, inevitably, answer) on its head? Is it measurement that brings about collapse – or, maybe, we are capable of measuring only collapsed results? Maybe our very ability to measure, to design measurement methods and instrumentation, to conceptualize and formalize act of measurement and so on – are thus limited and "designed" as to yield only "collapsible" solutions of wave function which are macrocosmically stable and "objective" (known as "pointer states")?

Most measurements are indirect - they tally effects of system on a minute segment of its environment. Wojciech Zurek and others proved (that even partial and roundabout measurements are sufficient to induce einselection (or environment-induced superselection). In other words, even most rudimentary act of measurement is likely to probe pointer states.

Superpositions are notoriously unstable. Even in quantum realm they last an infinitesimal moment of time. Our measurement apparatus is not sufficiently sensitive to capture superpositions. By contrast, collapsed (or pointer) states are relatively stable and lasting and, thus, can be observed and measured. This is why we measure only collapsed states.

But in which sense (excluding their longevity) are collapsed states measurable, what makes them so? Collapse events are not necessarily most highly probable – some of them are associated with low probabilities, yet they still they occur and are measured.

By definition, more probable states tend to occur and be measured more often (the wave function collapses more frequently into high probability states). But this does not exclude less probable states of quantum system from materializing upon measurement.

Pointer states are carefully "selected" for some purpose, within a certain pattern and in a certain sequence. What could that purpose be? Probably, extension and enhancement of order in Universe. That this is so can be easily substantiated by fact that it is so. Order increases all time.

The anthropocentric (and anthropic) view of Copenhagen Interpretation (conscious, intelligent observers determine outcomes of measurements in quantum realm) associates humans with negentropy (the decrease of entropy and increase of order).

This is not to say that entropy cannot increase locally (and order decreased or low energy states attained). But it is to say that low energy states and local entropy increases are perturbations and that overall order in Universe tends to increase even as local pockets of disorder are created. The overall increase of order in Universe should be introduced, therefore, as a constraint into any QM formalism.

Yet, surely we cannot attribute an inevitable and invariable increase in order to each and every measurement (collapse). To say that a given collapse event contributed to an increase in order (as an extensive parameter) in Universe – we must assume existence of some "Grand Design" within which this statement would make sense.

Such a Grand Design (a mechanism) must be able to gauge level of orderliness at any given moment (for instance, before and after collapse). It must have "at its disposal" sensors of increasing or decreasing local and nonlocal order. Human observers are such order-sensitive instruments.

Still, even assuming that quantum states are naturally selected for their robustness and stability (in other words, for their orderliness), how does quantum system "know" about Grand Design and about its place within it? How does it "know" to select pointer states time an again? How does quantum realm give rise to world as we know it - objective, stable, certain, robust, predictable, and intuitive?

If quantum system has no a-priori "awareness" of how it fits into an ever more ordered Universe – how is information transferred from Universe to entangled quantum system and measurement system at moment of measurement?

Such information must be communicated superluminally (at a speed greater than speed of light). Quantum "decisions" are instantaneous and simultaneous – while information about quantum system's environment emanates from near and far.

The combustion process 19th Century engineering gave us, I call slow burn. Over past century this technology has been retained because it provided great profits to Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Banking and Big Government, through fuel taxes; a very big conspiracy to rip off global consumers. All have agreed on desirability of using more than twenty times fossil fuel needed for inferior performance that poisons world’s air, soil and water. Indeed, it may be demonstrated in near future that liquid fuel technology has squandered fifty times more fuel than needed per developed horsepower.

Fast burn technology, developed by Canadian, Charles Pogue, in late nineteen forties, bought and suppressed by automakers, is a fifty five year old solution.

Charles had easily solvable power problems with his hot vapor, fast burn, gasoline fuel system. But he refused to address performance problem in his quest to achieve 300 mile per gallon fuel economy, after successfully surpassing 200 miles per gallon with a 1937 Ford V-8 sedan. This at a time when fuel was relatively cheap in North America and few would trade power for economy. I solved these problems in a simple fashion and never built a conversion to demonstrate solutions. This was due partly to fear of opposition and an unreliable sense of market timing.

The old slow burn technology makes just enough vapor in a combustion chamber to light mixture with a spark or compression heat in a diesel engine. At same time heat begins to vaporize liquid fuel to a combustible state, pressures build to great heights and prevent rapid vaporization of remaining fuel. In addition, unvaporized fuel absorbs great amounts of heat that cannot contribute to combustion pressure, which creates power. This rich or fuel heavy mixture serves to lower and regulate peak and average combustion temperatures throughout an unnecessarily long combustion cycle. This process uses a surplus of fuel that passes out to atmosphere unburned. The catalytic converter was industry response to cleaning this unburned fuel.

Fast burn technology does just opposite of slow burn. In a slow burn four stroke combustion engine there is fire in cylinder for more than one complete crankshaft revolution. That is, somewhere between 360 and 420 degrees of rotation. The power stroke is a 180 degree event and if we use a bicycle crank for comparison, we can see that most of power is delivered in half of full stroke, centered on mid point. That is, cylinder pressure creates greatest torque when piston is half way through power stroke. The engine will easily provide all power needed for cruise and moderate acceleration if there is only enough fuel available to make cylinder pressure fifteen or twenty degrees before and after midpoint of power stroke; a controlled power stroke of thirty to forty degrees. This is controlled by metering fuel so all fuel is burned up in an oxygen rich environment and emissions will now be hot air and trace amounts of oxides of nitrogen.

Most children learn at a young age, they can pass their finger through a candle flame without pain or injury by moving their finger through flame quickly. Such is secret of fast burn technology. Temperatures that would melt engine parts like valves and pistons if maintained for four hundred degrees of crankshaft rotation are no problem if burn cycle only lasts for a maximum of one hundred degrees in case of maximum power. Performance enthusiasts looking for that extra 50 horsepower by adding fuel, are ones most likely to melt parts. For these people - racers, hot rodders; engines likely to melt at high power outputs and too much fuel can and should be assembled with readily available thermal barrier coatings to prevent melt downs.

About ten years ago I read that slow burn performance engine developed peak cylinder pressure at 15 to 18 degrees after top dead center, early in power stroke. What if we could develop just twice that amount of cylinder pressure, three times as late in power stroke? That is, at 45 - 54 degrees after top dead center. The answer is we would have more than three times power at point of greatest mechanical advantage in power stroke as we do with bicycle crank in middle of its down stroke.