A watched pot never boils...

Algis, I have observed this phenomenon many times. I am now convinced that the Watcher is watching the watcher, thus denying the watcher the ability to focus totally on the stubbornly unboiling pot. If the watcher were free to watch whole-headedly, the message would be received by the pot from the watcher, and the pot, which is a kindly and beneficent creation of mancraft, would immediately jump to the boil out of respect for its creator.

There is another issue here: Is the important part of a pot the shell or the empty space therein? The glorious emptiness of the pot disappears gradually as it is filled with liquid. It is entirely possible that the pot is angered by having its inner emptiness, which is very zen-like, filled with an annoying bubbling liquid. The pot, in its disdain, keeps its skin temperature just below boiling, knowing that it is infuriating the watcher but needing to ensure its, the pot's, inner integrity.

Although Kara has raised some very interesting possibilities here, I firmly believe the watched pot doesn't boil for the very same reason as a stitch in time saves nine.

bandylu,

Would you boil if you were being constantly watched, I certaintly would not, nope never, not while being watched.

...while a pot with a boil needs to be lanced.

What's left to say? Bandylu has nailed this question.

Roger, although I agree with you that Bandylu has hit the target with a dart, the strike is not in the bullseye area; thus, there is a good deal more to be said about watched pots. I hope you will not judge too quickly and will lie in lurk and await all of the interesting possibilities.

For example, what if the watcher only thinks he sees a pot when, in actuality, there is only the perception of a pot and not the reality of one. The watcher could wait eternally for a perceived pot to boil while a real one was boiling right around the corner but he didn't perceive it!

Great, Kara. Just Great. You have the perception of a pot over here and Bib has a hypothetical ball falling through a theoretical ball over there.

Oh Goody, RogerDodger. Give me a link to that thread and I'll see if I can wreak some havoc there, too!

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1917&start=10

I meant hypothetical ball and theoretical hole, by the way.

But does it really exist or is it just a construct of the mind?

Well, Kara, theoretically speaking, if the pot is not really there and is, in fact, a mere figment of one's imagination, then one would have complete and total control over the entire boiling issue. Therefore, if the pot fails to boil it is because the imaginer doesn't want it to boil. And, if perchance the imaginer is actually too much of a realist to bring the contents of the imagined pot to a boil, then said realist shouldn't have been able to conjure up the pot in the first place.

So, see my above response re: stitch in time (though I am somewhat agreeable to Joanne's theory that the pot just may be a bit shy).

bandylu, I am willing to consider your argument that a stitch in time saves nine -- however, it must be thought through carefully because one particular person might be fetched by sewing nine stitches instead of just one, because this will allow them to keep their eyes downcast in contemplation (and forward thinking and manipulation and control! yes, control) while appearing modest and K.K.K. (this is not the usual KKK but a control group of original Germanic thought whose philos insisted that women's place was encompassed by kirchen, kuchen, and kinder...Oh, does that limp, but it means kitchen, church, and children. I think we ought to add a fourth C/K...computer
Sometimes nine stitches are better than one.

Uh, I forgot where I began. I'll be back...maybe