My claim is that we can rewrite ANY problem found in traditional probability theory using concepts such as the potential to exist , existential indeterminacy , and of course conservation . The nice thing about writing problems in this way is that it provides a very intuitive means to understand the role of observability , and of course this is an extremely important thing in the field of Physics. To explain that using a few simple examples consider a cointoss. Everybody knows the normal construction of this problem and so I will not repeat it here, instead we model this situation using our new tool which must be pointed out that it is not mathematics at all but something entirely different which I call Conjectural Modelling . The CoinToss. The outcome must be either Heads or Tails. The coin will be tossed and there is a potential for Heads and a potential for Tails. Neither Heads nor Tails exists yet, but one must exist to the exclusion of the other. Each has a potential to exist of 1/2, of course 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, and when the outcome actually does exist it will do so with probability= 1. The potential to exist is CONSERVED. Now, we cannot observe something which does not exist, and we cannot observe something which exists with probability 1/2, or any other crazy thing, this should be obvious. We can only observe things which exist. And we can only observe the actual outcome after it has occured because at that time the outcome will exist. If you flip heads you cannot observe tails because tails does not exist. If you flip Heads you must observe heads because heads exists. Observability, conservation and existence are all tied together in a very simple and elegant way. Simply because this is _not_ mathematics does not invalidate the methodology in any way. While such a method is certainly not mathematics, neither is it nonsense. It lies on the boundary between the two, and it is a formalism, a formal method of reasoning, and any statements which are valid conjectures must be transformable into orthodox mathematics under the assumption of existence. Under the assumption of nonexistence any conjectural statement is transformable into nonsense. But conjecture itself is neither one nor the other, it lies squarely on the boundary between the two, and the NUMBERS CRUNCH PRECISELY. So to all the nay-sayers, I say show me where my numbers dont crunch EXACTLY the same as orthodox mathematics and I WILL PAY YOU $100 USD DIRECTLY TO YOUR PAYPAL ACCT IMMEDIATELY if you can show ME where the NUMBERS fail to MATCH probability theory EXACTLY.