[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Fri Sep 15 22:50:12 UTC 2023
Good evening Jason,
I have a feeling that this dialogue is slowly getting to a stand still,
at least from my side. I do not think I have the knowledge to interpret
or understand what you are saying, (as seen below where I thought you
were talking about quantum mechanics but in fact you were talkingabout
ensemble-type theories) and as the nr of books and links is increasing
that I would have to go through, to provide you with good answers, I
find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. And that is
not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) Ok, they
might be better than the math and physics skills of the average person,
but not anywhere close to the skills of this list.
So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I would not
be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything you are
saying.
But, let's see. I'll have a look below, and let's see how it goes, but I
feel like I'm approaching my limit in terms of knowledge and time, and
as Wittgenstein said... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be
silent". ;)
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> Yes, so far, so good. I'm not debating (or at least that was not my
> intention) QM here. I'm debating interpretations of qm which in some
> cases I think go too far, and in my opinion, some interpretations are
> unscientific and can never be proved, other we _might_ be able to prove,
> but actually doing so, lies far, far ahead in the future.
>
> Note: I am not discussing QM as a theory here. I am discussing a theory that *predicts QM*. (I know this is confusing given the other
> discussions of interpretations of QM below, but this has nothing to do with QM as a theory, this has to do with a more general
> underlying ensemble theory, which can predict and account for why the universe happens to be quantum mechanical in the first place.
> QM cannot do this.)
Ahhh... this I know nothing about. I misunderstood. So that would
probably mean a new beginning for me and a lot of reading I suspect.
> That's one interpretation among many, and not without its critique and
> claims that it cannot be proven etc. Just adding that, but yes, MWI is
> the theory that you find most probable, so let's focus on that one.
>
> I am not talking about QM. I am talking about the work of Russell Standish, Markus P. Muller, and Bruno Marchal, all of which have
> used ensemble-type theories to predict aspects of quantum mechanics as traits we should expect to observe of our universe, if the
> ensemble theory is true. For example, please see Appendix D of this book: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf on page
> 217 where he derives the Shrodinger equation from first principles. This the point I am making, I am not talking about QM or its
> interpretations here, but rather *the more fundamental theory* that explains/predicts/accounts for QM.
>
> When you understand I am talking about this more fundamental theory, then you will see my point regarding how we can have
> observational evidence that supports the conclusion of a reality beyond this one.
Here we have the problem. In my current state, with so many years
between me now, and me in university, this means very little to me.
Therefore I cannot comment on what you say. I would like to, but I
cannot. Very sorry. =(
> I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, it is
> up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do not
> find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable
> intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to
> metaphysical chaos.
>
> Of course. I agree observation evidence is crucial. My point is that we have it, that is, we have observed our universe to obey the
> Shrodinger equation, and this is evidence for *the more fundamental theory* which predicts a universe governed by the Shrodinger
> equation.
I think this might enter Tegmark territory, and my opinion still stands
unchanged. We have observed equations predict events. We then
extrapolate things we will (most likely) never be able to prove. They
will forever remain extrapolations.
Lawrence post on the extropolis list struck a chord with me, and I think
it perhaps better illustrates my view of the difference between proof
and extrapolations:
"People who go down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations find themselves in a nest of thorns and nettles. No matter what
interpretation it is the attempt to make it something derivable or the single only consistent interpretation leads into a growing
mire of complexity that does not close. Carroll and others working on MWI are clearly entering this. Other interpretations similarly
hit this reef. The best interpretation is no interpretation. All interpretations are attempts to make quantum mechanics transduced
into our ordinary way of thinking, but QM is logically different in a way that makes this impossible. As Wittgenstein put it, "That
which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." That is the best advice with respect to quantum interpretations."
The fun coincidence here is that I thought of that quote before going to
bed, and then woke up and read it in Lawrence message. Maybe information is
leaking between universes after all? ;)
Regardless, this illustrates something I thought a lot about, and that
is moving from equations to verbal descriptions. That aspect of
theoretical physics, moving from nrs and equations, to putting it into
words, has always fascinated me, and I would not be surprised if that
might perhaps be a source of error and confusion. Our words and
languagesare not mathematical and number based, so maybe a distortion
does take place when we translate between the two languages?
> > Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%.
> > Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%.
>
> Well, I think that's the problem here. Your confidence is 95%, my
> confidence is not.
>
> This is just an example. In any case, nothing prevents us from performing the same objective Bayesian calculation and arriving at the
> same result.
But nothing prevents us from not doing it either. The one thing that
does help is observable evidence. And extrapolating to other universes
and other realms I think definitely makes that more difficult. The tool
"breaks down" so to speak.
> And since there is no proof either way, and since
> there are many competing theories, it currently remains a theory and the
> confidence varies wildly depending on who you ask.
>
> You can work backwards to find the different assumptions people are using to arrive upon different estimates of confidence. These
> aren't unsolvable problems.
Some might be, other might not. Using the same starting points, people
do end up in different locations. That is a fact, but the good news is
that the scientific method and time will correct that.
As I said, when smart people created and performed the experiments that
prove MWI (or any other interpretation) beyond doubt, I'll gladly join
the choire if I understand the proof. If it is not possible to produce a
proof that I can understand, I'll withhold judgement until I do, or
until there is a comfortable consensus, although that can be deadly too.
> It seems to me, that
> every theory has his highly educated and intelligent champion and all
> are equally good at arguing their point to me as a non-physicist with
> limited math skills.
>
> That is perhaps the most important lesson of all. Some of the smartest people in the world often disagree, which implies the smartest
> people in the world are often wrong.
Of course they are. By definition not all quantum mechanical
interpretations can all be right, so there will be a lot of very smart
and disappointed people, once a winner emerges, and then I guess we'll
see a paradigm shift perhaps?
> But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is performed, that
> brings final evidence for MWI,
>
> that would be filtered through experts,
> replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then shoot up
> to close to 100%.
>
> I think you would still have to wait for the CI adherents to die off, as Planck suggested:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
> As it is, I think the existence of working quantum computers already constitutes such proof for MW. Bell's experiment too, is proof
> of MW, if you believe special relativity is true and nothing travels faster than light.
Nice methodology. ;) I've seen other proposals for other experiments
which have or have not proven other interpretations. So we'll see. As
you said in an earlier message, the MWI:ers are increasing, but
Copenhagen is still in the lead. On the other hand, science is not a
democracy, so all it takes is one person being right and one proof. This
is why I do not like my own approach of looking at the comfortable
consensus. But, not being a theoretical physicist, what else can such a
man do? =(
> From a philosophical point of view, you are correct of course, and we
> all end up in solipsism if everything is doubted. When it comes to what
> makes me believe in bigbang or gravity with a high degree of confidence
> rather than the MWI, I'll lean on the consensus of the scientific
> community, since I am not a scientist, and yes, shame on me for doing
> that. ;) It is sad that science has become so specialized that that is a
> necessary shortcut for non-scientists. I'll pay the price of being late
> to the party, and I think that is a price worth paying.
>
> It is good to acknowledge this. So then, do I take it that your objection to MW is not that we cannot see them, but that there is not
> yet a consensus of scientists that accepts them?
Yes and no. A time proven consensus of scientists will definitely tilt
me in favour of the concept. The other thing which annoys me, and I know
you have tried to explain it, but I do not understand it, is that there
can be no bi-directional information flow between them. So to me, it
seems like a pointless theory. I think your Tegmark book and my reply to
that page you quoted would probably be as far as I would be willing to
go. So I'm not in principle opposed to MWI due to any spiritual grounds,
and as you say, once a time tested consensus appears, I will be more
likely to accept that theory, and... I do hope that by then, the
explanations and experiments which will have created this consensus will
have been translated into language and explanation which someone like me
can understand.
> But that is an empty or nonsensical term if you talk with someone who does
> not believe in god. It only amounts to language games.
>
> What's the difference, in your view, between math, logic, reason, philosophy, and language games? Or do you see them as all
> equivalent?
No, I do not see them as equivalent. Instead of me defining the
difference between these 5 terms, take me to the next step of your
argument, and I'll take it from there.
> Not to any
> knowledge about the world. You can say infinite amounts of statements
> about god, but at the end of the day, they will yield nothing.
>
> I disagree. We can reason about the valid properties of objects whose existence we are uncertain of. For example, we don't know if
> there are odd "perfect numbers", but we can say much about the properties such numbers must have, should they exist. I think theology
> is such a science. We can reason, for example, about whether omnipotence or omniscience are mutually consistent properties to have,
> or even whether they are individually consistent with themselves. If we find them to not be consistent, then we can form a statement
> like "If omniscience is inconsistent, then if God exists, God is not omniscient."
Well, since I do not believe in god, theology for me is just wordplay.
To me, it is meaningless. If you do believe in god, I fully respect
that, and of course it follows that theology is important to you. Since
I do not, my opinion is that it gives us nothing.
> I think there is rational evidence of God*.
> (* For some definitions of God)
>
> For example, see these sections from my articles:
> * https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts
> * https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife
> * https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God
I think there is no rational evidence of god. I think we live in a
material world we do not fully understand, but I have never seen or read
a proof of god that holds.
If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists by now.
In fact, should science manage to prove god, it would not be god as
commonly defined, but just another part of nature.
> I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually
> express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable.
>
> That is quite possible. But one almost must be careful to avoid relying on agnosticism as a crutch and thereby close off one's mind
> to the possibility such evidence could exist.
Yes! I think this is incredibly important and I worry about exactly
that. However, my opinion of god is that the only way to know him is
through subjective, uncommunicable experience. Without that and without
faith, any proof will fail. With faith or with that deep experience, any
proof can serve to fortify your belief.
But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, and Karl
Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using religion as a
crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your experience.
Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to an object
and closing him off.
I like how you point out that agnosticism might be another crutch. I
will think more about that.
On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so if you
are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better avoid him.
;)
But since this is a discussion on the border between science and faith
(ok, I'm being dramatic here) I thought that the quote and some of the
things he writes about was fitting.
> > Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without assuming the reality of the wave function and
> it's superposed
> > states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in
> any branch can
> > observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse.
>
> Well, based on what I have read, this is not settled. There are many
> explanations and theories of which MWI is one.
>
> You say that, but if you are aware of any that account for operational quantum computers, neither I, nor David Deutch are aware of
> any.
Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to articles that
say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know myself,
and you have probably found them yourself. So here I have to stop.
However, is Deutsch the only guy? I am certain each interpretation has
their champion and I amcertain Deutsch happens to be a champion of MWI.
> Deutsch believes that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound. He is nearly alone in this conviction,
> though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be
> evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation. “Once there are actual quantum computers,” Deutsch said to me, “and a
> journalist can go to the actual labs and ask how does that actual machine work, the physicists in question will then
> either talk some obfuscatory nonsense, or will explain it in terms of parallel universes. Which will be newsworthy. Many
> Worlds will then become part of our culture. Really, it has nothing to do with making the computers. But psychologically
> it has everything to do with making them.”
>
> You might point to people who shy away from this challenge/question, but you won't find anyone advocating or reasoning from a
> position of one of these other interpretations *explaining* quantum computers/Shor's algorithm working, which was experimentally done
> back in 2001: https://www.nature.com/articles/414883a
Well it does say believes, and I also think he sounds a bit dismissive
or arrogant. I could say that he speaks obfuscatory nonsense, and in
fact, the equations are obfuscatory nonsense, but I would give him the
benefit of the doubt.
Likewise, what he thinks is obfuscatory nonsense, might have meaning,
just that he doesn't understand it.
But, again, I concede that this is far above my level, so I, at least,
won't judge. I do still hold the opinion that there are many other
people who are equally arrogant and faithful to their own
interpretation.
> On wikipedia, under quantum mechanies, I find the following
> interpretations:
>
> Bayesian Consistent histories Copenhagen de Broglie–Bohm Ensemble Hidden-variable
> Local Many-worlds Objective collapse Quantum logic Relational Transactional
>
> of which MWI is one, and that it is far from settled which one of these
> is the correct one.
>
> It is called an interpretation, but I do not consider it one, which is why I abbreviate it as MW rather than MW. Here are some
> further quotes which I hope will strengthen my case:
I'm not convinced that the most profitable way to continue this is to
amass quotes for various positions.
> David Deutsch says of MW: "It is not in fact an “interpretation” of quantum theory at all, any more than dinosaurs are an
> “interpretation” of the fossil record. It is simply what quantum mechanics is. “The only astonishing thing is that that’s still
> controversial,” Deutsch says.
To me, it is not interesting what Deutsch says, it is more interesting
what Deutsch explains. If Deutsch is not able to explain it in a way
that makes the majority accept it, then that is a failing of Deutsch.
>
> Also: "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description
> of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger.”
Cynicism and anger I do not like. Incomprehension on the other hand, I
can fully embrace. Again, if he cannot explain it in a way to make it
comprehensible it is on him. But anger and cynicism he does not deserve,
there I support him.
> But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past each
> other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =)
>
> Yes, some progress, I hope. :-)
My biggest insight so far is how complex and ground breaking the subject
matter is, and how little I know. But I also think, looking at your
quotes, that there is a lot of emotions and ego involved when the giants
are debating this, and that is sad.
> What is the suicide rate among MWI proponents? As for using statistics
> beyond this world, I think we already touched on that a few emails back.
>
> I am aware of one case where someone believing in many worlds took their own life. It was Hugh Everett's daughter:
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Many_Worlds_of_Hugh_Everett_III/dqgqPjqIyJoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Please%20sprinkle%20me%20in%20
> some%20nice%20body%20of%20water%E2%80%A6or%20the%20garbage%2C%20maybe%20that%20way%20I'll%20end%20up%20in%20the%20correct%20paralle
> l%20universe%20to%20meet%20up%20w%2F%20Daddy.&pg=PT393&printsec=frontcover
Tragic. =( Wouldn't that be a nightmare if MWI became the norm, if that
increased?
> Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one day--when I'm old and crazy."
The man has a great sense of humour! =)
> Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very consistent! =)
>
> I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your agnosticism.
Thank you Jason, and thank you for the great idea of the risk of being
too agnostic!
> Good question! I know no straight answer. ;)
>
> Humans had no answer to this generally, until rather recently. Agains, Russell Standish, and Markus Muller have worked out a basis
> for Occam's Razor, from ensemble type theories. That is, they explain not only why the universe has something like a Shrodinger
> equation behind it, but also why the simplest laws tend to be the right ones.
Why do they say "tend" and not "always"?
> > physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave.
>
> But we can never know what anything "is" except our own consciousness. I
> think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a
> material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world.
>
> A platonic world can be shown to explain the appearance of a material world. It is thus a simpler theory than material world +
> platonic world, it is simply: platonic world.
Or simply the material world? Or simply nothing at all? The null set?
> Using simplicity of matter as an argument to rule out idealism, is an application of metaphysical laws (assuming a metaphysical
> principle that favors simplicity) this is why I asked if you believed in such a heuristic. I think most people assume it, and operate
> by it, but do not generally stop and wonder about the source of this heuristic, and why it works.
I think it goes back to what we discussed about doubting everything and
degrees of certainty. But occams razor cuts many ways, especially if you
leave the realm of computation and equations.
> But no, I am not 100% sure of that. And yes, based on what we've
> discussed so far, do not see how anything about MWI could _currently_
> move it from a theory to something which would fit well in with our
> current ways of predicting events.
>
> I hope have hope that you will. :-)
That's the beauty of the agnostic position. Maybe I will! ;)
> As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the
> interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll
> insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known and
> when he or they can be used to make testable predictions.
>
> But isn't this inconsistent with your strong bet on materialism? What proof do you have that lets you ascribe a near certainty to
> materialism, but deny the same could be done for MW?
The fact that it hurts when I get punched in the face, at the same time,
it does not hurt when someone in the other world tries to punch me in
the face.
> Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and
> eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain
> interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually
> computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the
> human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols.
>
> Do you believe that the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is either '0' or '1'? Or would you say it is a meaningless question because no
> one in this universe could ever determine which it was?
Well, to be honest, yes, outside the scope of this discussion I do
consider the question meaningless. ;)
If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty meaningless
question.
> What then, if I told you, there was some other larger universe, where people there had computed it, and determined which it was.
> Would that mean they have different mathematical truths there, than we have here?
I think that question is meaningless if there is no bi-directional flow
of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, as
fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless.
> > I'm no expert, but
> > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we
> > interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the
> > concept is meaningless.
> >
> > There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this universe. This follows from the fact that there
> are systems
> > of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable universe.
>
> See my previous reply.
>
> I have heard people argue for ultrafinitism before, but I think it leads to inconsistencies. Most things we have proven in
> mathematics would be false, if there were not infinite numbers.
> For example, the proof that there are infinite primes would be false, under ultrafinitism. If Pi's digits do not go on forever, then
> e^(2Pi*i) would not equal 1, but some other number. If it is not 1, then all of mathematics breaks down due to the principle of
> explosion (see: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#The_Foundational_Crisis )
I don't see how that would follow from my position. We have the
concepts, formulas, we perform calculations, and we can reason about
infinity, but at the end of the day, it is just a language and activity
in the brain of a being in the material world. Without us, all
mathematical truths are meaningless. They only exist when we interpret
them.
This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have happened
unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Daniel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Daniel
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jason
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat
> > > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Stuart,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of
> cutting
> > > > > > > edge physics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You say that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax
> because
> > you are
> > > already
> > > > > immortal. You
> > > > > > > don't need to
> > > > > > > copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if
> not
> > infinite
> > > numbers of,
> > > > you
> > > > > strewn about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > multiverse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses
> > supported by
> > > proof or
> > > > is itone
> > > > > of many
> > > > > > > interpretations of
> > > > > > > current theories?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that
> the
> > probability
> > > there's
> > > > only
> > > > > one
> > > > > > universe
> > > > > > > (with one kind of
> > > > > > > physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is as close to proof as anything science can provide.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards, Daniel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stuart LaForge
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a crucial point, for those of us
> interested in
> > uploading,
> > > so I
> > > > think we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would
> you
> > please
> > > explain
> > > > further?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you also please explain the comment about
> > continuity and
> > > > not-discontinuity
> > > > > not
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > same thing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ben
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > > > > >
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > > > > >
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list