Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
bmk1245

Where Quantum Mystics are wrong?

178 posts in this topic

Proponents of quantum mysticism claim that conscious choice during observation is a necessity for collapse of wavefunction (simpler - consciousness causes collapse), and whats more - experiments "did proved that". Well, you can find paper on delayed-choice experiment here: Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment, V.Jacques et al. Science 315, 966 (2007)(subscription required) with supporting online material (free), or on arxiv.org

I just want to highlight most essential parts in question:

[...] To ensure space-like separation between the entrance of the photon into the interferometer and

the choice of the interferometer configuration, the applied voltage on the EOM is randomly

chosen in real time, using a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG) located at the output

of the interferometer.[...]

[...] The random number is generated

by sampling the amplified shot noise of a

white-light beam. Shot noise is an intrinsic

quantum random process, and its value at a

given time cannot be predicted (23). [...]

[...] The delayed-choice experiment itself is

performed with the EOM randomly switched

for each photon sent into the interferometer,

corresponding to a random choice between the

open and closed configurations. [...]

[...] All

raw data were saved in real time and were processed

only after a run was completed. [...]

We even can change experiment in the way that all equipment would be powered-on/off by some random process, with experimenters miles and miles away and not aware of when experiment would start. Recorded results would give the same effect.

So... Are proponents of quantum mysticism wrong? Apparently, big YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is another paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3977

If the Delayed Choice Experiments prove consciousness causes collapse, the researchers clearly forgot to make any reference of it.

Edit: Ofcourse it depends on the interpretation accepted, there are much better interpretations that don't invoke the solipsistic silliness of consciousness causes collapse.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You guys still don't get it. It dosnt matter how many random processes you throw into the experiment to observe or not observe, the experimenter still had to make a choice to observe... It dosnt matter how they made that choice. Without the choice there is no collapse. Reguardless of how you organize the events ( prooven) yes even if choices are made after the experiment has been done, there still was a concouse choice.

Let me say that again. The present reality of the experiment is determined by actions in the future. This completely eliminates the possability of a piece of equipment or detectors from affecting the experiment. That was the reason the experiment was designed that way in the first place.

I can choose to observe if a coin falls on heads or tails or if a robot programed to do so for me while I'm on planet x in the m81 galaxy. The crux of the matter and the end of tge argument is that it still was the experimenter ( or rather the designer of the "random" process ) that made the choice. It is impossible to truely eliminate a concouse choice working through the integration and results of tge experiment.

Paragraph 3 In supporting online information is where this problem, bias, and frankly sublevel thinking occurs. ( I would have quoted it but my iPhone won't let me select it :( )

They are using a quantum number generator that generates a one or a zero. They don't say wether a 1 or a 0 makes the choice to determin the path of the photon or not.... And they don't have to.... You see the choice is not random at all. The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. Presumably during programming. Remember in the delayed choice WHEN the choice is made is IMMATERIAL. This simply stretches the choice to the point of when some programer DECIDED for the experiment to do one thing on 1 or another on zero.

If I strap you to chair on the other side of the earth and I program a firearm into a quantum random number generator to shoot on 1 or not on 0. Then I take the enterprise to a new galaxy. If the generator generates a 1 and you die. I am still guilty of murder. Indeed it was my choice that killed you on 1 or saved you on 0.

How these smart people miss things like this is beyond me. But my friend Landry would say it's their BIAS and I would agree. You cannot take "choice" out of the experiment , it's part of the name even. Therefore you cannot eliminate concousness.

The verdict is in folks. It dosn't matter when or where the observation is made, space and time have nothing to do with it. Material exists in space and time. These experiments show that the fundamental collapse of what we call reality is immaterial.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3977

If the Delayed Choice Experiments prove consciousness causes collapse, the researchers clearly forgot to make any reference of it.

Edit: Ofcourse it depends on the interpretation accepted, there are much better interpretations that don't invoke the solipsistic silliness of consciousness causes collapse.

I was glad that paper stuck with quantum mechanics without introducing all that backwards in time pressure wave crap.

The say their interpretation is constant with quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics is consistant with quantum mechanics is consistent with quantum mysticism. So there are no problems. I doubt they are right, as you stated their are many other interpretations... And we all know they can't all be right ( I beleive that is a common argument against RELIGON).

There is a reason that paper did not touch on concousness ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You guys still don't get it. It dosnt matter how many random processes you throw into the experiment to observe or not observe, the experimenter still had to make a choice to observe...

Read it again, thats not the choice.
There is a reason that paper did not touch on concousness.
Because it doesn't support it. Collapse occurs without conscious observation.
How these smart people miss things like this is beyond me. But my friend Landry would say it's their BIAS and I would agree. You cannot take "choice" out of the experiment , it's part of the name even. Therefore you cannot eliminate concousness.
Obviously consciousness and choice is required to set up the experiment, but thats no different to any other.

Bias? That's fresh coming from you, both you and Landry adamantly deny the experiment set up, Landry even deletes responses that challenges her misconceptions.

Can you do what Landry is unwilling or unable, support your premise that "consciousness causes collapse" with credible research? And I'm not talking about youtube videos.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys still don't get it. It dosnt matter how many random processes you throw into the experiment to observe or not observe, the experimenter still had to make a choice to observe... It dosnt matter how they made that choice. Without the choice there is no collapse. Reguardless of how you organize the events ( prooven) yes even if choices are made after the experiment has been done, there still was a concouse choice.

Let me say that again. The present reality of the experiment is determined by actions in the future. This completely eliminates the possability of a piece of equipment or detectors from affecting the experiment. That was the reason the experiment was designed that way in the first place.

I can choose to observe if a coin falls on heads or tails or if a robot programed to do so for me while I'm on planet x in the m81 galaxy. The crux of the matter and the end of tge argument is that it still was the experimenter ( or rather the designer of the "random" process ) that made the choice. It is impossible to truely eliminate a concouse choice working through the integration and results of tge experiment.

Paragraph 3 In supporting online information is where this problem, bias, and frankly sublevel thinking occurs. ( I would have quoted it but my iPhone won't let me select it :( )

They are using a quantum number generator that generates a one or a zero. They don't say wether a 1 or a 0 makes the choice to determin the path of the photon or not.... And they don't have to.... You see the choice is not random at all. The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. Presumably during programming. Remember in the delayed choice WHEN the choice is made is IMMATERIAL. This simply stretches the choice to the point of when some programer DECIDED for the experiment to do one thing on 1 or another on zero.

If I strap you to chair on the other side of the earth and I program a firearm into a quantum random number generator to shoot on 1 or not on 0. Then I take the enterprise to a new galaxy. If the generator generates a 1 and you die. I am still guilty of murder. Indeed it was my choice that killed you on 1 or saved you on 0.

How these smart people miss things like this is beyond me. But my friend Landry would say it's their BIAS and I would agree. You cannot take "choice" out of the experiment , it's part of the name even. Therefore you cannot eliminate concousness.

The verdict is in folks. It dosn't matter when or where the observation is made, space and time have nothing to do with it. Material exists in space and time. These experiments show that the fundamental collapse of what we call reality is immaterial.

:blink:

Oh boy... Following your logic, consciousness of designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment was causing wavefunction collapse as well. And the consciousness of experimenter's parents who decided to have kid(s) back in 19XX's, caused wavefunction collapse in 2007 experiment, too. Going further, conscious thought of our ancestor

stck.jpg

millions of years ago caused wavefunction collapse in 2007 experiment, as well. Brilliant, just brilliant.

Bottom line, philosophical blah blahs aren't supported by experiments, as it clearly seen from detailed description of delayed-choice experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Proponents of quantum mysticism claim that conscious choice during observation is a necessity for collapse of wavefunction (simpler - consciousness causes collapse), and whats more - experiments "did proved that". Well, you can find paper on delayed-choice experiment here: Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment, V.Jacques et al. Science 315, 966 (2007)(subscription required) with supporting online material (free), or on arxiv.org

When did "consciousness" come into it, I though the issue was that an "observer" brought different results, aka: a camera.

The "observer" did not have to have any inherent "consciousness" to affect the result as far as I could determine.

If there was any consciousness involved at all it originated from the photon - but that's just crazy :wacko:

So... Are proponents of quantum mysticism wrong? Apparently, big YES.

The question of why an observer causes the wave function to collapse is still a huge mystery isn't it?

Edited by libstaK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read it again, thats not the choice.

Because it doesn't support it. Collapse occurs without conscious observation.

Obviously consciousness and choice is required to set up the experiment, but thats no different to any other.

Bias? That's fresh coming from you, both you and Landry adamantly deny the experiment set up, Landry even deletes responses that challenges her misconceptions.

Can you do what Landry is unwilling or unable, support your premise that "consciousness causes collapse" with credible research? And I'm not talking about youtube videos.

Don't have to. The experiment already did. What else do you want.? They have taken any interfearance by the detectors by measuring it's entangled twin, and they have shown that it dosnt matter when the measurement is made. Even the paper that you posted didn't try to deny that. What else is there to cause collapse. Not detectors. Presumably they can be in another galaxy or another century. It's the act of measuring. The concouse act... The measurement itself. Something that does not gave to be in space nor time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:blink:

Oh boy... Following your logic, consciousness of designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment was causing wavefunction collapse as well. And the consciousness of experimenter's parents who decided to have kid(s) back in 19XX's, caused wavefunction collapse in 2007 experiment, too. Going further, conscious thought of our ancestor

stck.jpg

That's quit an emotional response there. That's pretty typical, and telling ;)

And thank you.... Although it's not my brilliance at all.

How so? Are you going to make an argument or keep p***ing against the wind?

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When did "consciousness" come into it, I though the issue was that an "observer" brought different results, aka: a camera.

The "observer" did not have to have any inherent "consciousness" to affect the result as far as I could determine.

If there was any consciousness involved at all it originated from the photon - but that's just crazy :wacko:

The question of why an observer causes the wave function to collapse is still a huge mystery isn't it?

Cncousness comes into it, because they can eliminate the "Camara" by observing the entangled twin. This has a non local collapse on the entangled beam.

Now to further it, they can leave the "Camara" on, but ERASE the information it receives. "erase" is also in the name of the experiment. This shows that "Camara" has nothing to do with the wave function collapse. It's a non-local information system proofing that on the most fundamental level reality is information driven not material.

It is quite clearly the ACT of observing that causes collapse, and has nothing to do with the equipment or apparatus. Again, this is why the experiment was designed in the first place. The op would have us beleive that machines and random number generators have the ability to ACT on their own. When in fact machines and programs cannot ever truely act on their own. The choices "they" make are dictated by us. If Somone was controlling your actions, you would never consider your actions your own, it obviously would be theirs acting through you. I'm not sure, why the same logic would not aply ( oh yes denial). The only thing that we know of that makes choices are living concouse things.

Choices are concouse actions. As of yet we are the only ones that can make choices to observe or not observe, and this can clearly be done non-locally. Non-local is also immaterial because it needs neither space nor time.

No sense in trying to make the duck bark like a dog. If it quaks like a duck.,,..,,,

Concousness is a non-local phenomenon as demonstrated by the experiments.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]The "observer" did not have to have any inherent "consciousness" to affect the result as far as I could determine.

[...]

But thats exactly what proponents of quantum mysticism claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was any consciousness involved at all it originated from the photon - but that's just crazy

It does not have to originate from the photon. It's non-local, it can originate from anywhere..... Even everywhere at once ;)

Crazy? hmmmmm sounds like a bias judgment. It's just "crazy" because it's counter intuitive and we are indoctrinated into thinking if things dont behave they way we would expect them to, something is wrong. It's our expectations that are often the problem. That's bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's quit an emotional response there. That's pretty typical, and telling ;)

[...]

Emotional? Nope. Just to show how absurd your claims sound.

[...]

How so? Are you going to make an argument or keep p***ing against the wind?

Really? You claimed
The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made.

I just followed your train of thought a little bit further: person CHOSE to use THIS computer, and THAT detectors; person CHOSE screws THAT and not THOSE. Someone in the past come-up with THAT architecture of CPU in experimenter's computers and THAT shape of screws in their equipment, etc, etc, etc, etc down to "I ******* love this stick!" If you'll say I'm wrong here, then your logic of The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. is... wrong. Simple.

Edit to add: simple inverter would change 0 to 1, without any effect on results of experiment.

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But thats exactly what proponents of quantum mysticism claim.

Yes... No observation has ever or ever will not have consciousness behind it. At best the materialist should be arguing that inteligent beings are the only things that can perform experiments, so of course we cannot eliminate ourselves. But we have managed to boil everything out so that the only thing left is observation itself. Well what observes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not have to originate from the photon. It's non-local, it can originate from anywhere..... Even everywhere at once ;)

Crazy? hmmmmm sounds like a bias judgment. It's just "crazy" because it's counter intuitive and we are indoctrinated into thinking if things dont behave they way we would expect them to, something is wrong. It's our expectations that are often the problem. That's bias.

I don't think it is a bias, I think it is illogical. The point of a scientific experiment is to produce results that are logical. Hence the term "observer" not "consciousness in the experiment.

I do not "disagree" with the possibilities you present (they provide food for thought) I simply do not believe that the point of the experiment was to make any conclusions about the nature of consciousness. The point appears to be to note that "observation" invariably causes a collapse of the wave function. Fact is science does not know why this is so but it has had a profound effect on the scientific method - the observer appears to require consideration when extrapolating results.

Crazy is a term well used in the results of many quantum experiments and many of it's theories - not as a bias against but as a profound statement of the complete lack of material logic in the results. The experiment could be repeated a thousand times (possibly has) and the results would still instill the notion that they are "crazy" based on what science knows of the cause of the phenomena to date.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But thats exactly what proponents of quantum mysticism claim.

Without a material result that counters the position, it actually does remain a possibility. However, it was not the point of the experiment and not all has been said and done to quantify the term "observer" as part of the scientific process. So there is a leap but all theories start with a leap. I await evidence. On the collapse of the wave function and whether the "observer" and consciousness bear a relationship to each other - they are two distinct questions I feel although inextricably entangled right now ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Emotional? Nope. Just to show how absurd your claims sound.

Really? You claimed

I just followed your train of thought a little bit further: person CHOSE to use THIS computer, and THAT detectors; person CHOSE screws THAT and not THOSE. Someone in the past come-up with THAT architecture of CPU in experimenter's computers and THAT shape of screws in their equipment, etc, etc, etc, etc down to "I ******* love this stick!" If you'll say I'm wrong here, then your logic of The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. is... wrong. Simple.

Edit to add: simple inverter would change 0 to 1, without any effect on results of experiment.

You still don't get it. I'm not makeing any claims. How absurd something sounds is what you are unable to get past. The sound of Absurdity is a bias judgment. it forces you to cling to your bias.

It certainly is where a choice is made. Or I guess you could call it THE choice. It's a far cry from eliminating concious choice from the experiment. Just because many choices were made prior to that one leading up does not eliminate the importance or the existence of the particular concious choice. Again, if I set up a billion billion quantum random number generators each one flip flopping what would be done on the final 1 or 0, and it landed on the choice that shot you dead... It was still I that am guilty of murder. It dosn't matter a bit. Conciousness cannot be eliminate no mater how much smoke and mirrors or coin flips are used to seperate it. It's only seems absurd because you are still indoctrinated into thinking there is some sort of material involved in the process. There is not. Quite obviously the choice is the culprit.... How that choice is carried out or what led to it is irrelevant. under a Newtonian view of fundamental reality the choice was made by original conditions before inflation. Under a quantum randomness view ( which is really just a materialist interpretation of processes that are non material), then some sort of quantum fluctuation followed by cascading events would have been the original catalyst for a particular choice. Under a quantum mysticism view, there is really only one mind makeing choices. Mind before material. The experiments support the latter interpretation a whole lot better. Obviously materialistic views can no longer be supported when both space and time are eliminated but concouse choice cannot be.

As of yet an immaterial choice cannot be separated from consciousness. Mabey evenchually it can, I dont know. But quantum mysticism also explaines many other human experiences, yet another trait of a good theory. It's the best choice at the moment.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a material result that counters the position, it actually does remain a possibility. [...]

IMHO possibility of that is zero squared :ph34r:

[...] However, it was not the point of the experiment [...]

Of course not, but mystics claim it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still don't get it. I'm not makeing any claims. How absurd something sounds is what you are unable to get past. The sound of Absurdity is a bias judgment. it forces you to cling to your bias.

It certainly is where a choice is made. Or I guess you could call it THE choice. It's a far cry from eliminating concious choice from the experiment. Just because many choices were made prior to that one leading up does not eliminate the importance or the existence of the particular concious choice. Again, if I set up a billion billion quantum random number generators each one flip flopping what would be done on the final 1 or 0, and it landed on the choice that shot you dead... It was still I that am guilty of murder. It dosn't matter a bit. Conciousness cannot be eliminate no mater how much smoke and mirrors or coin flips are used to seperate it. It's only seems absurd because you are still indoctrinated into thinking there is some sort of material involved in the process. There is not. Quite obviously the choice is the culprit.... How that choice is carried out or what led to it is irrelevant. under a Newtonian view of fundamental reality the choice was made by original conditions before inflation. Under a quantum randomness view ( which is really just a materialist interpretation of processes that are non material), then some sort of quantum fluctuation followed by cascading events would have been the original catalyst for a particular choice. Under a quantum mysticism view, there is really only one mind makeing choices. Mind before material. The experiments support the latter interpretation a whole lot better. Obviously materialistic views can no longer be supported when both space and time are eliminated but concouse choice cannot be.

As of yet an immaterial choice cannot be separated from consciousness. Mabey evenchually it can, I dont know. But quantum mysticism also explaines many other human experiences, yet another trait of a good theory. It's the best choice at the moment.

More wool over gullible's eyes, and more macaroni over their ears...

It certainly is where a choice is made
:w00t:

Funny, how folks change their story to fit experiment. Can you comprehend simple sentence "the applied voltage on the EOM is randomly chosen in real time, using a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG)", or not???

You just grasping straws to make experiment to support your fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More wool over gullible's eyes, and more macaroni over their ears...

:w00t:

Funny, how folks change their story to fit experiment. Can you comprehend simple sentence "the applied voltage on the EOM is randomly chosen in real time, using a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG)", or not???

You just grasping straws to make experiment to support your fantasies.

Ugggggg. The quantum number generator generates a 1 or a 0. Does it not? SOMEONE DECIDED. What would be done with that one or 0. Did they not? I don't care if they used another generator to decide what to do with it or another and another. It's irrelevant to the fact that a choice to observe is being made by a concouse observer.. If I program a computer to observe and collect information for me, it's just a tool, a magnifying glass and stick writing in the dirt just a more complex one designed to make it look like im further from the actions when in fact I'm not. No straws needed....only honesty. As prooven it is irelevant WHEN the choice to observe is made. That's the startling results of the experiment. There is no denying it, there is no hidding it, there is no getting around it by creating ever more complex experiments, the results are tge same. Space, time, and matter have been eliminated... The only thing left is the act of measuring Itself.

I don't have a story. The experiment speaks for itself. Of course a focused biased approach will create denial of all sorts of facts. If the agenda behind interpretation is not to inturprete but to propel a preconceived and outdated worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] It's irrelevant to the fact that a choice to observe is being made by a concouse observer.[...]

WRONG

For umpteenth time

The choice between open and closed configurations, made by a quantum random number generator...

link

What observers did before experiment (ate, played chess, connected cables, etc) is completely irrelevant. Observers did not chose between open/closed configurations. All your word salad is nothing more than just lame attempt to justify your fantasies.

But hey, since you "have" mind over matter capabilities, please change words in the abstract from Wave-particle duality to Wave-duality-particle on Science webpage.

Call me when you done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys still don't get it.

The "consciousness affects reality" argument is one of the more tragic misreadings of quantum physics.

Consciousness doesn't affect the outcome of an experiment. Measurement does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of why an observer causes the wave function to collapse is still a huge mystery isn't it?

No, it's not.

The wavefunction (superposition) of a quantum property of an object (or of a quantum object itself) is a mathematical construct of all the possible values that property of that object may be. However, this wavefunction does not exist as a 'real object' itself. The only reason we have the wavefunction is because until a measurement is taken the actual value of a quantum property of an object cannot be known.

The observer does not influence the value observed, neither does the observer "collapse the wavefunction" because there is no wavefunction (except as an abstract, mathematical concept) to collapse. When physicists talk about "the collapse of a wavefunction" they are speaking in mathematical terms.

The various popular 'theories' involving consciousness being involved in wavefunction collapse are based on a flawed understanding of the physics and the terminology it employs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Read it again, thats not the choice.

Because it doesn't support it. Collapse occurs without conscious observation.

Obviously consciousness and choice is required to set up the experiment, but thats no different to any other.

Bias? That's fresh coming from you, both you and Landry adamantly deny the experiment set up, Landry even deletes responses that challenges her misconceptions.

Can you do what Landry is unwilling or unable, support your premise that "consciousness causes collapse" with credible research? And I'm not talking about youtube videos.

Landry deletes what's already been covered over and over. This filibustering tactic is a waste of your time, but it becomes unacceptable when it becomes a waste of my time. If you can't look past your ideological attachment to materialism, I see that as your problem - not Seeker's or my problem. You are entitled to believe whatever appeals to you on whatever grounds you can conjure up. Your assumptions and beliefs are something for you to manage on a personal level. Proselytizing is ineffective. Unless someone comes to a conclusion about something according to their own process and hopefully through the aegis of logic and objectivity - it's not really theirs anyway. I've tried to make clear that my purpose is to initiate a thought process free of psychological and cognitive conditioning.

Physicist Tom Campbell, formerly with NASA and now a consultant for NASA and other agencies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrL9kBx5jS4

The next step typically to discredit - but go right ahead. I would much prefer to be in the intellectual company of someone such as Campbell who is comfortable with an actual logically objective thought process.

Edited by Landry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It certainly is where a choice is made. Or I guess you could call it THE choice. It's a far cry from eliminating concious choice from the experiment. Just because many choices were made prior to that one leading up does not eliminate the importance or the existence of the particular concious choice. Again, if I set up a billion billion quantum random number generators each one flip flopping what would be done on the final 1 or 0, and it landed on the choice that shot you dead... It was still I that am guilty of murder. It dosn't matter a bit. Conciousness cannot be eliminate no mater how much smoke and mirrors or coin flips are used to seperate it. It's only seems absurd because you are still indoctrinated into thinking there is some sort of material involved in the process. There is not. Quite obviously the choice is the culprit.... How that choice is carried out or what led to it is irrelevant. under a Newtonian view of fundamental reality the choice was made by original conditions before inflation.

I don't think you understand what the experiment is about.

You may as well throw in sex is part of the experiment, as because if no one had it the researchers would have never been born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.