Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

# Cosequences of mechanical universe and death

415 replies to this topic

### #361 White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,321 posts
• Joined:12 Jul 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:California

• Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:30 PM

Harte, on 08 May 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

The above is nothing but a fundamentally flawed understanding of set theory.

No matter which level of infinity (and there are at least four known,) nothing whatsoever creates any such "certainty" of any repetition whatsoever.

Think of the set of all even numbers.  Is it infinite?  Absolutely.  Does it contain an odd number?  Absolutely not.

Therefore, in any infinite set, the fact that the set is infinite certainly says nothing about whether a certain element is a member of that set.

Ergo, in infinite universes, there is no guarantee that there will be even a single "me," much less an infinite number.  Not only that, but sets don't have to be things, they can be anything.  So the same logic applies to any infinite set of actions.  Hence, there's no guarantee that my life and what has occurred in it (actions) will be an element of such a set, and then certainly no reason at all to believe that subset of actions (my life) should therefore be repeated infinitely.

Harte

I'm intrigued. Explaine a lithe more... It's not my theory it's Suskind's, but this sounds like these places where numbers have no bearing on reality. An infinite set of even numbers is not a reality it's just something in your head. So is the distinction between even and odd numbers. Let's say we string a set of numbers from here to the moon. Each one of these numbers is random and changes once a year. Furthermore let's use a number system with a 1000 numerals instead of 10.  It will take many trillions of eons to syphon through all combinations, but evenchually they will. Is there some mathmatical rule that stops this?  Now let's relate this to reality. Well there are laws so not everything can happen. There is no vector for a solid gold planet, but certainly the things that Have happened are possible. So we get either probability this exact universe = some number or probability this exact universe = 1. Either way in enough time those probabilities repeat.

Of course if there are infinite possible kinds of universes then it dosnt have to repeat but it might.

"In the adventure known as life, there are those who live it vicariously, and enjoy the ride from the safety of an arm-chair; and that's good. There are those who have a few chances to realize incredible and life-changing experiences; and though they don't repeat them, they carry with them a growth and personal philosophy for the rest of their lives. And there are those for whom a taste, is never enough; for whom the lust of adventure, is nearly insatiable. And if you add to that the overwhelming desire to create, and to share, then you get where I reside. For the end of one adventure, only signifies the beginning of another." Less Stroud..........."Survivor Man"

### #362 ai_guardian

ai_guardian

al-sifer .o.O.o. refic-ul

• Member
• 1,329 posts
• Joined:25 Feb 2005
• Gender:Male
• Location:reality

• If you want to know what it will be like when you die, just remember back to what it was like before you were born.

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:17 PM

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

In Quantum Mechanics they use a formula called a wavefunction -
If it were up to you as described below, they would be using this formula to create atoms

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

If you had a microscopic dice the wavefunction would have a part for each of the six outcomes combined together into one formula. When information is gained on which number it landed on the wavefunction is destroyed. This is because you cant find the outcome for the object and still have it behaving as a probability.

Prior to gaining information a lot of scientists only view the wavefunction as being real. Atoms are what come into existance when a wavefunction is destroyed (they call it wavefunction collapse). With the wavefunction that produces an atom being so small its difficult for information to be leaked to the rest of the universe so normally all that exists is the wavefunction. The physics that a wavefunction abides by is quantum mechanical behaviour.
The bolded parts, by me, is where you are sadly mistaken. Wavefunctions DO NOT produce atoms. I'd like to see the source where you got this info or is it something that you read "between the lines"? Wavefunctions produce probabilities, probabilities of a quantum state of a particle (or an ensemble).

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Atoms have mass but probabilities dont and therefore a probability isnt restricted by the speed of light. If you placed an atom into the centre of a box, stopped gaining all information on it (so it reverts back to a wavefunction) and after the smallest fraction of a second turned on your atom location detector something amazing happens. You can detect the atom in a part of the box it couldnt have reached without going faster than the speed of light! What is really going on is the wavefunction wasnt restricted by the speed of light as its a probability. Being able to detect an atom somewhere where it shouldnt be yet is why lots of scientists view the wavefunction as being the only thing that exists when there is no information.
The initial bolded is an example of the qm mumbo-jumbo that you were referring to earlier, and oddly, caught out doing. If you want to respond, then do so with references, thank you, I'd like to see them. The rest of the bs in this paragraph is a perfect example of what can happen when someone who reads either a) sensationlised qm garbage or real qm info but has no idea; can finish up believing, I'm pretty sure Seeker is in this boat too.

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

The reason why macroscopic objects dont usually behave quantum mechanically is they leak so much heat. Heat is the leakage of information. With so much heat leakage (from trillions and trillions of atoms) its very rare for the wavefunctions of macroscopic objects to remain intact. However it isnt impossible! By cooling down objects to near absolute zero scientists have been able to get macroscopic objects behaving quantum mechanically too.
This, and all the other reasons mentioned in Cybele's source prior source. Take a pick, if it were up to me though, I'd be picking the explanation that is put forth by someone that at least understands qm.

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

The relevance of Quantum Mechanics to mysticism is that without information on the rest of the universe all that should exist is one very complicated wavefunction describing all probabilities. In science you could call this the multiverse but in truth there is no objective thing its a probability equation.
I'd like to see a reference to this. Where did you get the part that is bolded? Funny that we even defined an equation to describe something that, apparently, doesn't even exist

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Buddhism says exactly the same thing but they have their own words for things. They call the wavefunction that represents a multiverse the primal substance. They teach their followers that when you gain information you collapse the primal substance into the reality they then experience. In essence there is no objective reality only the one of experience.
And what exactly is one experiencing then?

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Buddhism is not solipsism its non-dualism. They believe the primal substance is the only thing that exists and that its God. We perceive ourselves and objects as being seperate but we arent. We all unify into the primal substance. Everything is oneless and everything is God. To experience becoming one requires Buddhist training. There is another way but you will need to send me a PM to be told about it.
Snake oil.

"... there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred. ... And therefore if a man should talk to me of ... Immateriall Substances; or of A free Subject; A free-will; or any Free, but free from being hindred by opposition, I should not say he were in an Errour, but that his words were without meaning; that is to say, Absurd. ..."[sic] Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan (1651)

### #363 ai_guardian

ai_guardian

al-sifer .o.O.o. refic-ul

• Member
• 1,329 posts
• Joined:25 Feb 2005
• Gender:Male
• Location:reality

• If you want to know what it will be like when you die, just remember back to what it was like before you were born.

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:20 PM

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Earlier I posted some information on the wavefunction -
Not quite, see previous post and further in this one.

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I explained that most scientists believe that atoms dont exist before information is gained on them. They believe that only the wavefunction does.
Where did you explain that most scientists believe that atoms don't exist before information is gained on them?

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I used the following example to explain why -

Atoms have mass but probabilities do not. If you put an atom in a box, stop gaining all information on it and after a fraction of a second turn on an atom location detector you can find the atom in a location it shouldnt be unless it violated light speed. What is really going on is when we stopped gaining information on the atom it ceased to exist and reverted to a wavefunction. Wavefunctions are probability equations and therefore have no mass. Therefore the wavefunction is not limited by light speed like an atom. When we turn on the atom location detector and collapse the wavefunction the atom can be brought into existance in a place it shouldnt have reached yet.
Hogwash. Please explain exactly what the "atom location detector" is and how it can detect all locations in the box at the same time? Right after you provide a source to this groundbreaking experiment.

Quote

There is another experiment which works because atoms revert to wavefunctions when no information is gained on them. Its called Quantum Tunneling -
Nonsense. It does not work because "atoms revert to wavefunctions when no information is gained on them", that is just your qm mumbo-jumbo, no doubt. Once again, a wavefunction is a function that describes, probabilisticaly, the quantum state of particles (or an ensemble thereof), of which many make up an atom. Did you know that it is quite difficult to even describe the quantum states of a hydrogen atom?

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I'll explain it. If you shoot a tennis ball at a wall you can watch it rebound off. If you shoot atoms at a wall you can watch them rebound off too. If you shoot atoms at a wall but dont look to see whats happening something amazing happens -

The atom ceases to exist and reverts to a wavefunction. The wavefunction is a probability and works a bit like a magnetic field. Just as a magnetic field leaks through a peice of paper the wavefunction leaks through the wall. If you have an atom detector on the other side of the wall and use it to collapse the wavefunction you can bring the atom into existance on the other side of the wall. Not only have you got an atom through a wall as if by magic but you can violate light speed doing this too.

I told a little lie with the box experiment. Not only can you detect the atom in places it shouldnt be you can lose it when you collapse the wavefunction because the wavefunction also leaks outside the box. So not only has the atom appeared to violate the speed of light it even managed to get out the box!

This is supposed to actually work with tennis balls and brick walls too. However you would need to cool the tennis ball down to near absolute zero (not done yet) or fire trillions of trillions of them at the wall until you get one that quantum tunnels through (The larger the object the weaker the wavefunction. Therefore each ball has far less chance of quantum tunneling through than an atom. Hence the reason why you'd need trillions of trillions of them to get one that will magic through).
More of the same sensationalised bs. First off with reference to the first paragraph, with quantum tunnelling it doesn't matter if you're looking or not. Secondly, with regards to the second paragraph, is this again something that you read between the lines or do you have a reference to confirm your sensationlised bs? Thirdly, you tell more than a little lie, you do exactly what the scientific method has been set up to overcome, shame on you.

"... there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred. ... And therefore if a man should talk to me of ... Immateriall Substances; or of A free Subject; A free-will; or any Free, but free from being hindred by opposition, I should not say he were in an Errour, but that his words were without meaning; that is to say, Absurd. ..."[sic] Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan (1651)

### #364 Rlyeh

Rlyeh

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,333 posts
• Joined:01 Jan 2011
• Gender:Male
• Location:The sixth circle

• Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:10 PM

This isn't the first time Mr Right Wing has equated the wavefunction with non-existence.

### #365 White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,321 posts
• Joined:12 Jul 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:California

• Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:53 PM

ai_guardian, on 09 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Seeker is in this boat too.

Yes AI, only you have the ability to study and read about a subject and comprehend it. You are more educated and have your head screwed on tighter than respected scientists and anyone who disagrees with you,  anything you don't agree with is just hogwash. I get it.

"In the adventure known as life, there are those who live it vicariously, and enjoy the ride from the safety of an arm-chair; and that's good. There are those who have a few chances to realize incredible and life-changing experiences; and though they don't repeat them, they carry with them a growth and personal philosophy for the rest of their lives. And there are those for whom a taste, is never enough; for whom the lust of adventure, is nearly insatiable. And if you add to that the overwhelming desire to create, and to share, then you get where I reside. For the end of one adventure, only signifies the beginning of another." Less Stroud..........."Survivor Man"

### #366 Rlyeh

Rlyeh

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,333 posts
• Joined:01 Jan 2011
• Gender:Male
• Location:The sixth circle

• Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:52 PM

Seeker79, on 09 May 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Yes AI, only you have the ability to study and read about a subject and comprehend it. You are more educated and have your head screwed on tighter than respected scientists and anyone who disagrees with you,  anything you don't agree with is just hogwash. I get it.
The same respected scientists that you implied are in denial with their "wacky interpretations"?

### #367 Harte

Harte

Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

• Member
• 7,450 posts
• Joined:06 Aug 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Memphis

• Skeptic

Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:14 PM

Rlyeh, on 09 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

The game here is you're making up bull****.
Of course he is.

I already showed he doesn't even understand basic logic (in the form of elementary set theory.)

He didn't respond to that.  It's pretty obvious why.  There is no response to what I showed.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them.
- The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

### #368 White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,321 posts
• Joined:12 Jul 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:California

• Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:34 PM

Rlyeh, on 09 May 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

The same respected scientists that you implied are in denial with their "wacky interpretations"?
Scientist like Max Planck

"In the adventure known as life, there are those who live it vicariously, and enjoy the ride from the safety of an arm-chair; and that's good. There are those who have a few chances to realize incredible and life-changing experiences; and though they don't repeat them, they carry with them a growth and personal philosophy for the rest of their lives. And there are those for whom a taste, is never enough; for whom the lust of adventure, is nearly insatiable. And if you add to that the overwhelming desire to create, and to share, then you get where I reside. For the end of one adventure, only signifies the beginning of another." Less Stroud..........."Survivor Man"

### #369 White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,321 posts
• Joined:12 Jul 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:California

• Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:36 PM

Harte, on 09 May 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Of course he is.

I already showed he doesn't even understand basic logic (in the form of elementary set theory.)

He didn't respond to that.  It's pretty obvious why.  There is no response to what I showed.

Harte

Actually I did silly take a look. I hope your a more thorough than that with your set theory

"In the adventure known as life, there are those who live it vicariously, and enjoy the ride from the safety of an arm-chair; and that's good. There are those who have a few chances to realize incredible and life-changing experiences; and though they don't repeat them, they carry with them a growth and personal philosophy for the rest of their lives. And there are those for whom a taste, is never enough; for whom the lust of adventure, is nearly insatiable. And if you add to that the overwhelming desire to create, and to share, then you get where I reside. For the end of one adventure, only signifies the beginning of another." Less Stroud..........."Survivor Man"

### #370 Harte

Harte

Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

• Member
• 7,450 posts
• Joined:06 Aug 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Memphis

• Skeptic

Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:42 PM

Seeker79, on 09 May 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm intrigued. Explaine a lithe more... It's not my theory it's Suskind's, but this sounds like these places where numbers have no bearing on reality. An infinite set of even numbers is not a reality it's just something in your head.

See, it's foolishness like this that exposes you for an ignorant buffoon.

It was you that brought infinity into the argument in the OP for God's sake!

If their are infinite universes, then those universes are countable.  Hence there is a one-to-one correspondence between those universes and the set of natural numbers.

Stop pretending you know something.  I just had to tell you how numbers apply to the real world.  In effect, it had to be explained to you how counting works.

If you don't know that, then you don't know squat.

Seeker79, on 09 May 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

So is the distinction between even and odd numbers. Let's say we string a set of numbers from here to the moon. Each one of these numbers is random and changes once a year. Furthermore let's use a number system with a 1000 numerals instead of 10.  It will take many trillions of eons to syphon through all combinations, but evenchually they will. Is there some mathmatical rule that stops this?
Yes. There is.

The way you've assembled your set means there will never be a single irrational number in it.  So that is a combination that will never appear.

There are more irrational numbers between zero and one than there are whole numbers on the entire infinite number line.

So, you can let your numbers randomize forever if you want.

Please note, however, that the number of elements in the set is finite, so it is a finite set. If you didn't have the extra condition that it is a string of numbers from here to the Moon, you could keep adding places and it wouldn't make a gnat's ass worth of difference how many numerals were in your number system (as long as it was more than one)

You said that an infinite set must contain not only every possible thing, but copies of every possible thing.

So it is you that is changing the tune now, isn't it?  You're trying to squeeze infinity into a finite set.

Seeker79, on 09 May 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Now let's relate this to reality. Well there are laws so not everything can happen. There is no vector for a solid gold planet, but certainly the things that Have happened are possible. So we get either probability this exact universe = some number or probability this exact universe = 1. Either way in enough time those probabilities repeat.
No, it certainly does not.  Are you saying there can be no infinity if a gold plannet doesn't exist?  After all, what if one doesn't?  Then we can't have infinity?  What about the set of real numbers?  It's huge (I assume you know.)  But there's not a single complex number in it, and the set of all complex numbers is bigger than the set of all real numbers.

I guess we have to throw out these sets if a gold planet doesn't exist?

What about a live Donald Duck?  If such a creature doesn't exist, then we can't have an infinity existing?

If you don't see the absurdity of that position ( and I fear you don't,) then hopefully Mattshark can enlighten you.

How you been Matt.  Seems like I haven't seen you around.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them.
- The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

### #371 White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,321 posts
• Joined:12 Jul 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:California

• Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:57 AM

Harte, on 09 May 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

See, it's foolishness like this that exposes you for an ignorant buffoon.

It was you that brought infinity into the argument in the OP for God's sake!

If their are infinite universes, then those universes are countable.  Hence there is a one-to-one correspondence between those universes and the set of natural numbers.

Stop pretending you know something.  I just had to tell you how numbers apply to the real world.  In effect, it had to be explained to you how counting works.

If you don't know that, then you don't know squat.

Yes. There is.

The way you've assembled your set means there will never be a single irrational number in it.  So that is a combination that will never appear.

There are more irrational numbers between zero and one than there are whole numbers on the entire infinite number line.

So, you can let your numbers randomize forever if you want.

Please note, however, that the number of elements in the set is finite, so it is a finite set. If you didn't have the extra condition that it is a string of numbers from here to the Moon, you could keep adding places and it wouldn't make a gnat's ass worth of difference how many numerals were in your number system (as long as it was more than one)

You said that an infinite set must contain not only every possible thing, but copies of every possible thing.

So it is you that is changing the tune now, isn't it?  You're trying to squeeze infinity into a finite set.

No, it certainly does not.  Are you saying there can be no infinity if a gold plannet doesn't exist?  After all, what if one doesn't?  Then we can't have infinity?  What about the set of real numbers?  It's huge (I assume you know.)  But there's not a single complex number in it, and the set of all complex numbers is bigger than the set of all real numbers.

I guess we have to throw out these sets if a gold planet doesn't exist?

What about a live Donald Duck?  If such a creature doesn't exist, then we can't have an infinity existing?

If you don't see the absurdity of that position ( and I fear you don't,) then hopefully Mattshark can enlighten you.

How you been Matt.  Seems like I haven't seen you around.

Harte
Buffoon? Your a charming sort of personality arnt you? You and Rhley are going to get along just fine.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the discussion or have the manners to reply maturely. Why don't you talk to suskind about your use of numbers and his theories... I'd bet he would say your full of it. Do you bother to read at all? As I have said before its not my theory, it's a famous and celebrated physisist's. You might want to read about it. You might learn about how far your assumptions sink.

"In the adventure known as life, there are those who live it vicariously, and enjoy the ride from the safety of an arm-chair; and that's good. There are those who have a few chances to realize incredible and life-changing experiences; and though they don't repeat them, they carry with them a growth and personal philosophy for the rest of their lives. And there are those for whom a taste, is never enough; for whom the lust of adventure, is nearly insatiable. And if you add to that the overwhelming desire to create, and to share, then you get where I reside. For the end of one adventure, only signifies the beginning of another." Less Stroud..........."Survivor Man"

### #372 Rlyeh

Rlyeh

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,333 posts
• Joined:01 Jan 2011
• Gender:Male
• Location:The sixth circle

• Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:39 AM

Seeker79, on 09 May 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Scientist like Max Planck
One scientist who died over 50 years ago.
According to the thread about quantum physics, you refer to the most popular theories as wacky, and those who support them are in denial.

### #373 Cybele

Cybele

Married to the Void

• Member
• 1,432 posts
• Joined:26 Jan 2008
• Gender:Female

• Prick your finger it is done
The moon has now eclipsed the sun
The angel has spread its wings
The time has come for bitter things

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:40 AM

Seeker79, on 10 May 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

Why don't you talk to suskind about your use of numbers and his theories... I'd bet he would say your full of it. Do you bother to read at all? As I have said before its not my theory, it's a famous and celebrated physisist's. You might want to read about it. You might learn about how far your assumptions sink.

You might provide some links to articles or lectures of Susskind's which you think support your argument and explain exactly how they do so, for those of us who don't closely follow the world of theoretical physics.

I understand that Susskind is one the fathers of string theory. I assume you know that not all theoretical physicists think string theory is the best "theory of everything" out there. Why should we unquestioningly accept the potential ramifications (or what you claim are ramifications) of a theory that is still controversial within its field?

Edited by Cybele, 10 May 2012 - 08:00 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

### #374 Mattshark

Mattshark

stuff

• Member
• 16,985 posts
• Joined:29 Dec 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Liverpool, UK

• Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 10 May 2012 - 10:10 AM

Hey Harte, hows it going?

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

### #375 Harte

Harte

Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

• Member
• 7,450 posts
• Joined:06 Aug 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Memphis

• Skeptic

Posted 10 May 2012 - 11:52 AM

Mattshark, on 10 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Hey Harte, hows it going?

Good.  Still just as rude as ever, to stuffed shirts that appear to not know what they're talking about! LOL

How you doing?

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them.
- The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users