Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uncovering a Simulation
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 118 (485193)
10-06-2008 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Agobot
10-06-2008 4:59 AM


Re: Reality
Hi Agobot,
Let me try to repeat your argument back to you so you can see how it looks to everyone else:
Because we cannot prove there is no Creator, and because the world's greatest scientists believe the universe had a Creator, and because reality in the small bears no resemblance to reality in the large, and because QM is shocking and disturbing and "totally screwed up" (Message 4), therefore reality must be a simulation.
Nobody can see any actual evidence in that argument, and it doesn't help that you not only keep repeating the fallacy of argument from authority, but if by Creator you mean a supernatural God Creator then you are misrepresenting the views of most of those scientists.
So go ahead and have a philosophical discussion on quantum weirdness, but you shouldn't keep arguing that there's evidence that reality is a simulation unless you can actually present some.
Your recently mentioned clarification that it might be more accurate to instead characterize reality as illusory has much more promise. Calling reality a simulation is problematic in the extreme because even before noting the lack of evidence it implies that while our reality isn't real, somewhere there's a reality that is running our simulation. This just introduces the conundrum of an infinite regression: Is the reality that is running our simulation the ultimate reality, or is it itself just a simulation, and so on and so on...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Agobot, posted 10-06-2008 4:59 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Agobot, posted 10-06-2008 11:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 77 of 118 (485207)
10-06-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
10-06-2008 8:46 AM


Hardcore atheism FTW
Percy writes:
Let me try to repeat your argument back to you so you can see how it looks to everyone else:
Because we cannot prove there is no Creator, and because the world's greatest scientists believe the universe had a Creator, and because reality in the small bears no resemblance to reality in the large, and because QM is shocking and disturbing and "totally screwed up" (Message 4), therefore reality must be a simulation.
No, that's not true. That's how a die-hard atheist would interpret my words. Where i specifically said on multiple occasions that if you look in the mirror, you should see 99.99999999% empty space, but you see yourself, you don't see empty space(that's the famous Rutherford model of the atom). Does this tell you something? Every cell of your body is made of 99.9999999999% empty space, the other 0.0000000000001% or less can exhibit both particle and wave-energy behaviour at the same time. Matter does not exist physically, you perceive matter, but that perception at the most fundamental level of physics falls apart dramatically and conveys a message that life is a dream(state) of the mind.
"Simulation" is not the right word, but "illusionary reality" is not either as it still sticks to the word reality(what is the non-illusionary reality then??). I was hoping some of the native speakers would be able to come up with the right English word, but it doesn't seem likely. Unless someone coins it, i don't see how a language could have this word in its lexis.
I never claimed that this illusion was impossible to occur in a probabilistic way. It's is possible but IMO it's very very unlikely.
I see the universe as a big, sophisticated structure with very complex laws and interactions. The fact that's predictable and comprehensible is another clue that there is a an Architect behind this grand structure.
There is another hot issue for debate. How could you hard atheists claim that the self-organising Universe arose by chance when there is no evidence that randomness exists at all? It appears you are trying to build a castle in the sky with the idea of hardcore atheism floating in the centre of it.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 10-06-2008 8:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 10-06-2008 11:45 AM Agobot has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 118 (485213)
10-06-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Agobot
10-06-2008 11:09 AM


Re: Hardcore atheism FTW
Agobot writes:
No, that's not true. That's how a die-hard atheist would interpret my words.
Except that I'm not a die-hard atheist, and your argument that I should see empty space when I look in a mirror makes no sense because there's plenty of non-empty space for EMR to interact with. Your problem isn't atheists, it's that you really do have no evidence.
This thread is in one of the science forums. There's another set of forums for religious discussions, and there are a couple forums where the interplay between science and religion can be discussed: [forum=-11] and [forum=-12]. If you'd like to discuss the impact of atheism on science then you should find another thread.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix link.
Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Agobot, posted 10-06-2008 11:09 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Agobot, posted 10-06-2008 12:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 79 of 118 (485219)
10-06-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
10-06-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Hardcore atheism FTW
Percy writes:
Except that I'm not a die-hard atheist, and your argument that I should see empty space when I look in a mirror makes no sense because there's plenty of non-empty space for EMR to interact with.
Yep there is plenty... like 0.00000000001% or less of the volume.
Percy writes:
Your problem isn't atheists, it's that you really do have no evidence.
I have no problem with atheists, everyone is free to believe in whatever they want. However hardcore atheism is rather ridiculous. Perhaps i really don't have the evidence that you want to see, but that holds for you as well. There is no evidence what happened prior to the BB and if it happened by chance(if there is randomness at all in nature). Dismissing entirely the possibility that there could be a creator behind the workings of the Universe is ridiculous.
Percy writes:
This thread is in one of the science forums. There's another set of forums for religious discussions, and there are a couple forums where the interplay between science and religion can be discussed: Big Bang and Cosmology and Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution. If you'd like to discuss the impact of atheism on science then you should find another thread.
It's right where it belongs. I have no objection to the Big Bang model, I accept it, it's probably true but there is a real possibility that the start of the universe and its existence(the perception we call reality) could be the work of an Intelligent Agent(Architect). And this needs to be discussed right here on the Big Bang model. As Steven Hawking points out - the Big Bang model does not preclude a creator and your point that the Big Bang is incompatible with Creation is moot:
"One possible answer is to say that God chose the initial configuration of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand. This would certainly have been within the power of an omnipotent being, but if he had started it off in such an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it evolve according to laws that we could understand? The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."
-Steven Hawking, "Brief History of Time"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 10-06-2008 11:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 10-06-2008 2:29 PM Agobot has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 118 (485223)
10-06-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Agobot
10-05-2008 2:29 PM


Re: Reality
Hi Abogot,
In my opinion you have not yet addressed the points I made about the Simulation Paradox.
  • 1. If God(or whatever else anyone wishes to call it), created a simulation, then as per the definition of simulation(the imitation of some real thing'), there has to be a real reality that God is imitating. As I pointed out, if you say that this reality we perceive is the only simulation, then again, by definition, it is not a simulation, it is just a single creation...be it any type of reality it is, it would still be just one, and as such not a simulation.
  • 2. A simultaion would require an intelligent designer. Intelligence is the by-product of evolution and natural selections applied to a planet for 3.5 billion years, whoever created the simulation had to have undergone some kind of similar evolutionary process and now you run into the same old argument of, 'who created the designer?'
  • 3. And point 2 leads us to the other paradox of, "How does God know that He himself is not in a simulation? In fact how does He know that He is a God at all? We humans can create simulations, are we going to be Gods? But, if we are in a simulation, AND we can create simulations, the paradox becomes never ending. At that point, to me, it seems like just another one of those philosophical paradox's that have no real answers, other than subjective interpretations.
Care to tackle an of those 3 points?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Agobot, posted 10-05-2008 2:29 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Agobot, posted 10-06-2008 1:34 PM onifre has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 81 of 118 (485229)
10-06-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by onifre
10-06-2008 12:51 PM


Re: Reality
onifre writes:
Hi Abogot,
In my opinion you have not yet addressed the points I made about the Simulation Paradox.
Hi onifre,
It's true i didn't, it was my fault.
onifre writes:
1. If God(or whatever else anyone wishes to call it), created a simulation, then as per the definition of simulation(the imitation of some real thing'), there has to be a real reality that God is imitating. As I pointed out, if you say that this reality we perceive is the only simulation, then again, by definition, it is not a simulation, it is just a single creation...be it any type of reality it is, it would still be just one, and as such not a simulation.
I would not call it exactly a simulation(i see the obvious paradox), just a "perception of life". Maybe we should call it "reality" as long as we know that "reality"="perception of life". There is a void in every language's lexis for the exact word.
onifre writes:
2. A simultaion would require an intelligent designer. Intelligence is the by-product of evolution and natural selections applied to a planet for 3.5 billion years, whoever created the simulation had to have undergone some kind of similar evolutionary process and now you run into the same old argument of, 'who created the designer?'
That's a good question and you probably expect a good answer. Your reasoning is sound but what exactly does it mean to exist or be in the "reality"? An idea, an illusion? We are just beginning to understand how little we know about existence and reality. "Who created the designer" - I don't believe the Cause and Effect principle is valid for anyone/anything but our realm of existence. It's a law from our classical world that gets broken to pieces in the quantum world that we know. So is there a meaning to the question - "Who created the designer?" when our minds struggle to comprehend how something can be UNcaused in the QM and yet it's taking place?
onifre writes:
3. And point 2 leads us to the other paradox of, "How does God know that He himself is not in a simulation? In fact how does He know that He is a God at all? We humans can create simulations, are we going to be Gods? But, if we are in a simulation, AND we can create simulations, the paradox becomes never ending. At that point, to me, it seems like just another one of those philosophical paradox's that have no real answers, other than subjective interpretations.
Care to tackle an of those 3 points?
After questions like this, i see how hopeless human logic can be. There is no answer for that, human logic breaks down and seems restricted to see out of the box(same case as with the singularity and what happened before it). I think Einstein must have been thinking something along those lines when he said:
"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
But is it humanly possible even for a genius like himself?
I believe in most of his thoughts, they make so much sense with regard to how I view reality. Too bad the perception is so short-lived, i wish i could have met him.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 12:51 PM onifre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 118 (485237)
10-06-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Agobot
10-06-2008 12:11 PM


Re: Hardcore atheism FTW
Addressing the on-topic portion of your post:
Agobot writes:
Yep there is plenty... like 0.00000000001% or less of the volume.
Approaching this classically as you seem to be doing, it doesn't matter that most of the volume of an atom is empty. The size of an atom is far, far smaller than the wavelength of light. For example, the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 1 angstrom while the wavelength of light ranges between 4000 and 7000 angstroms. Light's wavelength is orders of magnitude too large to pass through the empty space in an atom.
The separation between atoms is also correspondingly small. It varies widely across all substances, but a separation on the order of no more than a few angstroms is pretty realistic, not counting gases. Again, light's wavelength is orders of magnitude too large to fit between atoms.
What you're suggesting would be like an elephant fitting through a soda straw without touching the sides.
AbE: A better analogy occurs to me. Light passing through and by atoms in a solid would be like trying to tunnel through sand without touching any sand grains.
So your argument has too problems:
  • It's wrong.
  • Even if it were actually astounding that light reflects off matter instead of passing through its empty portions, astoundment is not evidence that reality is a simulation.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : See AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Agobot, posted 10-06-2008 12:11 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:28 AM Percy has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 83 of 118 (485532)
10-09-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
10-06-2008 2:29 PM


Re: Hardcore atheism FTW
Percy writes:
Approaching this classically as you seem to be doing, it doesn't matter that most of the volume of an atom is empty. The size of an atom is far, far smaller than the wavelength of light. For example, the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 1 angstrom while the wavelength of light ranges between 4000 and 7000 angstroms. Light's wavelength is orders of magnitude too large to pass through the empty space in an atom.
The separation between atoms is also correspondingly small. It varies widely across all substances, but a separation on the order of no more than a few angstroms is pretty realistic, not counting gases. Again, light's wavelength is orders of magnitude too large to fit between atoms.
What you're suggesting would be like an elephant fitting through a soda straw without touching the sides.
AbE: A better analogy occurs to me. Light passing through and by atoms in a solid would be like trying to tunnel through sand without touching any sand grains.
So your argument has too problems:
It's wrong.
Even if it were actually astounding that light reflects off matter instead of passing through its empty portions, astoundment is not evidence that reality is a simulation.
--Percy
It doesn't matter if a certain very very tiny portion of the EM spectrum is reflected off of certain atoms. You fail to see that quantum theory tells us there is only one world - the world of the energy fields(what you call a universe in your everyday life). The other classical world that you experience is a "shadow", a kind of reflection of the interaction of these energy fields.
When you walk out in the park, at the most basic physical level, there's only an energy field moving through other energy fields. Also when you die, nothing really "dies" as the energy fields are there, though in a different configuration, or as Einstein put it:
"The tragedy of life is what dies while a man lives"
Why we get the idea that we are living(the energy field that we call a human body) is another profound topic, but if quantum teory tells us we are just energy in an energy field, I accept it even though it turns my perception of reality upside down.
But if you come to think about, if we all 6.65 billion people get the same perception of reality that somehow arises off the interaction of the energy fields, wouldn't you say that we are participants in an orchestrated play? Could this perception that is shared by 6.65 billion observers that arises off some energy be uncaused and random(if randomness if proven to exist)? Simulation is an ambiguous word and maybe i should have put a disclaimer in the OP, but 80 years ago there was no word for the Singularity. So call it what you will - "Matrix", "perception of life", illusion, etc. they all refer to the same thing - the feeling and sensation that the fields are alive.
In a sentence, Einstein is right and you are wrong - reality and life are an illusion arising from the energy fields. And I hope there are no minors reading this thread.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 10-06-2008 2:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Vacate, posted 10-09-2008 10:43 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 10-09-2008 2:44 PM Agobot has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 84 of 118 (485535)
10-09-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Agobot
10-09-2008 10:28 AM


quote
Can you please explain how this quote:
Einstein writes:
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
has to do with this:
Agobot writes:
Also when you die, nothing really "dies" as the energy fields are there, though in a different configuration
It may be my twisted outlook that leaves me looking crosseyed at most poetry but I just cannot find the relation between the two. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:28 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:50 AM Vacate has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 85 of 118 (485537)
10-09-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Vacate
10-09-2008 10:43 AM


Re: quote
He says we don't exist physically, at least not in the way your granny thinks we do. Thus the only thing that dies is the preception that is rather tragical at the funeral. But it's just a perception, although tragical.
Hence... "The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives."
He also goes on to say... "The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead"
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Vacate, posted 10-09-2008 10:43 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Vacate, posted 10-09-2008 11:26 AM Agobot has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 86 of 118 (485543)
10-09-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Agobot
10-09-2008 10:50 AM


Re: quote
If thats what he meant then I think Einstein sucked as a poet, but what do I know? Maybe with some context I can figure it out, do you have a source handy? (Its high time I went to sleep so I am simply lazy)
I see the first as saying that life deals harsh blows that kill off a persons heart (or soul) and such a loss is a tragedy. With a bit of twang it could sell records in Texas.
Sorry, off topic. I am just interested in where you got the quote to see if my Country/western theme is correct or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:50 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 11:33 AM Vacate has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 87 of 118 (485545)
10-09-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Vacate
10-09-2008 11:26 AM


Re: quote
Vacate writes:
If thats what he meant then I think Einstein sucked as a poet, but what do I know?
A good physicist is hardly the best candidate for a poetic award, but he's pretty subtle and witty in his thoughts. Here you can see more:
Classic HeartQuotes Archive
I have a book, a collection of his thoughts and contemplation but it's in Bulgarian. Whenever i see a good context, I am quoting him even if i have to translate it to English.
I cannot provide a context for this quote, and he speaks vaguely, you have to understand his views toward life, reality and existence to make out his thoughts. I could have misunderstood that one in particular, but generally he spoke quite often about reality being an illusion.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Vacate, posted 10-09-2008 11:26 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Vacate, posted 10-09-2008 11:44 AM Agobot has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 88 of 118 (485546)
10-09-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Agobot
10-09-2008 11:33 AM


Re: quote
I think you should be a bit more careful with your quotes if that is your source. Though I do not deny that he said it, I see no reason to doubt it, I find comparing your statement to his quote to be less than solid. As my interpretation stands equally well in this case (though admittedly much more Johnny Cash in sound) the only way to resolve if you are correct is to provide some context. The site you linked however does not.
but he's pretty subtle and witty in his thoughts
Agreed, and I believe you missed the mark. Context will provide your victory...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 11:33 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 11:57 AM Vacate has not replied
 Message 92 by Son Goku, posted 10-09-2008 4:21 PM Vacate has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 89 of 118 (485548)
10-09-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Vacate
10-09-2008 11:44 AM


Re: quote
I told you, the only context i could provide is his thoughts on reality:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"
-A.Einstein
Einstein's Search & the Illusion of Reality
Funny computer geek tech support programming coding Mac Apple Linux Tux gaming Minecraft T shirts Shirts Tshirts Tees Gifts
"We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense....There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality." Einstein
I could be wrong on that one in particular(about the tragedy of life..), but he does say quite often that reality is an illusion, even if you don't like the way it sounds.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Vacate, posted 10-09-2008 11:44 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 118 (485559)
10-09-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Agobot
10-09-2008 10:28 AM


Re: Hardcore atheism FTW
Agobot writes:
It doesn't matter if a certain very very tiny portion of the EM spectrum is reflected off of certain atoms.
You originally said that we should see empty space when we look in a mirror, so you were talking about visible light. And you said that the fact that we don't see empty space is astounding and represents evidence that we live in a simulation. Now you're saying that visible light is only a tiny, tiny portion of the EM spectrum and that it doesn't matter if some of it reflects off certain atoms.
I suspect that your shift of argument in midstream was inadvertent. If we stick with the visible light portion of the EM spectrum as per your original argument, then you are incorrect that only a "very, very tiny portion" of the light is "reflected off of certain atoms." Virtually no light passes through any everyday-world solid, not even glass. All light striking a solid is absorbed. This excites the individual atoms that absorb the light's energy, and some proportion of those atoms reemit that energy as EMR, much of it in the visible light spectrum. It is this reemitted light that we see as reflected light.
So it isn't just that photons occasionally strike atoms. All photons fired at solids strike atoms. Virtually none of it passes through the empty space of atoms. The atoms electron cloud prevents this. It's like a beach ball, where you can't get at the air inside the beach ball without going through the ball's plastic shell. The light hits the electron shell and causes electrons to rise to higher energy levels before it can ever reach the empty space inside that shell.
And virtually none of the light passes through the empty space between atoms. Just as you can't push a broomstick down through a carton of oranges without hitting lots of oranges, in solids the atoms are packed together too thickly for light to just pass through without striking any.
So your argument about the mirror is based upon a misconception. There's no surprise that light reflects back from solids, because there is virtually no space large enough for light to pass through.
You fail to see that quantum theory tells us there is only one world.
I don't know why you would say this. When people talk about the macro world and the micro world, do you actually believe they're talking actual real worlds, real and distinct planes of existence, different realities? They're not. They're just talking about different perceptual levels. You can look at the universe at the highest levels and see galaxies and groups of galaxies. You can look at the lowest levels and "see" (if the theory pans out) superstrings. You can look at intermediate levels and see planets, rocks and atoms. It's all the same reality just examined at different scales.
In a sentence, Einstein is right and you are wrong.
You actually believe Einstein would agree with you? Interesting.
In any case, I'm not discussing this with Einstein, whose views you don't seem to understand, I'm discussing this with you. It's you I disagree with, not Einstein.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:28 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 3:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024