<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 8:19 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">I still do not see any </span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, Jason</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font color="#500050">Since when does science form theories before evidence? Cart before the horse. bill w</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif" dir="auto"><font color="#500050"></font></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Very often.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Inflationary cosmology</div><div dir="auto">Higgs boson</div><div dir="auto">General and special relativity</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Just to name a few.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif" dir="auto"><font color="#500050"><br></font></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:38 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 9:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello Jason,<br>
<br>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
> That is quite a big "if" in my world.<br>
> <br>
> It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we have for it. I have put together a list of confirming evidence<br>
> here:<br>
> <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence</a><br>
<br>
Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any<br>
verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and<br>
I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to<br>
test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm<br>
or deny them.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a theory which we can verify with our senses or observations (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation would falsify the theory.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Agree so far?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information theory:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1. The universe follows simple stable laws</div><div dir="auto">2. The laws are probabilistic in nature</div><div dir="auto">3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in time</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that inverse square law of gravitational attraction.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not empirical.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Hold on... so when checking quantum interference and the two slit<br>
> experiment, it seems to me that the experiment resulted in the<br>
> interpretations and theories we are discussing. So since I am doubting<br>
> information transfer between universes, I don't see how we can use this<br>
> experiment, which gives rise to what I am doubting, to justify or prove<br>
> what I'm doubting here. MWI is one interpretation among many, which are<br>
> not proved. So I would not count it as proof of this.<br>
> <br>
> All theories of QM accept a multiplicity of parts of reality. This is how the single-electron two slit experiment is explained (the<br>
> electron is in two places at once). Where the theories diverge is in saying what happens when we look at the system.<br>
> <br>
> CI says all the other possibilities a particle (or system of particles) might be in, while they were real, once observed all but one<br>
> of them then suddenly vanish. This is the issue Shrodinger pointed out in his cat experiment. How could a living (or dead cat)<br>
> suddenly disappear (or appear?) when we open the box? This seemed quite incredible.<br>
> <br>
> MW says the superposition spreads contagiously as superposed particles interact with other particles. See this presentation I put<br>
> together for how the superposition spreads, from particles to systems of particles (including our brains):<a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NThhVw4hrPxOueAQEwr-MNfIQiBaPd9o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109779696990142678208&rtpof=true&sd=t" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NThhVw4hrPxOueAQEwr-MNfIQiBaPd9o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109779696990142678208&rtpof=true&sd=t</a><br>
> rue<br>
<br>
I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are<br>
theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit<br>
experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd<br>
rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump<br>
in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some<br>
writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal places).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is right.<br>
> <br>
> Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a trillion odds)<br>
> Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations?<br>
<br>
No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an<br>
extremely lucky guy. ;)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let's say there are two theories for what is happening:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1. You are very lucky</div><div dir="auto">2. The game is rigged</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in your assessment?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death do not<br>
> have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no information<br>
> travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read (religious<br>
> relatives aside).<br>
> <br>
> Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things occurring outside this world?<br>
<br>
Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude<br>
contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof<br>
related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert<br>
landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of<br>
interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this<br>
world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and<br>
philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage,<br>
but that does not mean I believe in them.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind because you are agnostic on a theory of consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this is the<br>
> nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most likely<br>
> forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize it 100%.<br>
> <br>
> This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer running some program for which we don't know whether or not it<br>
> will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical problem how much power this computer will ultimately draw. But this<br>
> physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and there will always remain problems for which currently known<br>
> mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs.<br>
<br>
I agree.<br>
<br>
> But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand the scope of<br>
> questions that are answerable.<br>
<br>
I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons,<br>
developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at<br>
the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to<br>
theories which cannot be proven. </blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the theory of gravity or evolution.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">They are an important tool, they can<br>
serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and<br>
will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some theories are far more likely to be correct than others.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Instead of seeing this as a limitation, perhaps this is instead a<br>
> strength?<br>
> <br>
> I think it's enough to acknowledge there will always be things we do not know. But I don't think that's ever a justification for<br>
> ceasing or limiting our exploration.<br>
<br>
Agreed!<br>
<br>
> Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in our<br>
> world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are<br>
> concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can do to<br>
> escape their medium of existence by themselves.<br>
> <br>
> You are defining their existence in terms of their material construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and say any<br>
> identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and the material substrate is unimportant) then external simulation<br>
<br>
I do, since we live in a material universe.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Therefore I do not think it<br>
makes sense to relax this constraint.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> mainstream view in philosophy of mind, multiple realizability. If you destroy a mind in one place and rebuild it elsewhere, the<br>
> reconstructed person survives, even if different atoms are used. If our minds can be viewed as certain computations, then any mind<br>
> can be created in any universe in which a Turing machine can be built.<br>
<br>
Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that<br>
in our other thread about ID and consciousness.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my opinion.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> > For this reason, universes are never entirely causally isolated from one another, they can peer into other universes,<br>
> extract<br>
> > information from them, and that information can effect the goings on in that universe. For example, the fact that I've<br>
> written the<br>
><br>
> As per above, I still do not see how this could be. I'm very sorry.<br>
> <br>
> It might help to consider the, (what I consider to be analogous), question of how does mathematical knowledge enter our universe?<br>
> <br>
> What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes entirely<br>
> physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or can happen in this universe?<br>
<br>
I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns<br>
and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical<br>
concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It transcends us, and any attempt to define it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, where does truth come from, if not us or our axiomatic systems?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they can’t have any others except those he has given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least something in them) exist objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of Platonism or ‘realism’ as to the mathematical objects."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-- Kurt Gödel in “Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and their implications p. 311″ (1951)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> feel as if this might end up as the qualia discussions, where one side<br>
> cannot see how the other cannot see.<br>
> <br>
> There is a loose analogy between separate physical universes and separated conscious minds. Things become incommunicable due to a<br>
> lack of shared points of reference. E.g., I can no more explain my concept of red to you, then two beings in two different universes<br>
> can communicate the meaning of a meter between each other.<br>
<br>
Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness.<br>
It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that<br>
individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I<br>
do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Best regards, <br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Jason <br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Daniel<br>
> <br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Jason<br>
> > <br>
> ><br>
> > Best regards,<br>
> > Daniel<br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Jason<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > > > Hello Stuart,<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting<br>
> > > > edge physics.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > You say that<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are already<br>
> > immortal. You<br>
> > > > don't need to<br>
> > > > copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not infinite numbers of,<br>
> you<br>
> > strewn about<br>
> > > > the<br>
> > > > multiverse.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by proof or<br>
> is itone<br>
> > of many<br>
> > > > interpretations of<br>
> > > > current theories?<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability there's<br>
> only<br>
> > one<br>
> > > universe<br>
> > > > (with one kind of<br>
> > > > physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > This is as close to proof as anything science can provide.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Jason <br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > <br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Best regards, Daniel<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Stuart LaForge<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, so I<br>
> think we<br>
> > should<br>
> > > > really<br>
> > > > understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please explain<br>
> further?<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Could you also please explain the comment about continuity and<br>
> not-discontinuity<br>
> > not<br>
> > > being<br>
> > > > the<br>
> > > > same thing?<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Ben<br>
> > > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > > > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > > > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > > > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > > > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > > > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > > > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >_______________________________________________<br>
> > > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > >_______________________________________________<br>
> > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>