Home | Community | Message Board

KykeonAnalytics.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14940277 - 08/17/11 11:52 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
All scientific theories and models are abstractions.  All of them.



Yes but some are more likely to yield useful data pertaining to testable, reproducible material phenomena, no?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14940295 - 08/17/11 11:56 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Yes.  And quantum theory yields the most accurate quantitative predictions and descriptions of our observations.  No observation has ever been made that is inconsistent with quantum theory, and all predictions agree with experiments to the extent of the experiment and predictions accuracy.

Quantum theory makes the earth is round theory look like a gross approximation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14940375 - 08/18/11 12:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Aright, just tell me you're not a multiverse guy...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14940484 - 08/18/11 12:59 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Viveka, why do you not think that a cat is an observer? I think the catinabox experiment is best replaced with a person in a box expeirment, or a rock in a box experiment, for otherwise we suffer the dillema of asking whether the cat is observing its state or not. If it was, then it wouldnt matter whether someone opened the box or not.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14941181 - 08/18/11 07:27 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:

Well, if we are trying to understand a phenomenon in the material world it's pretty important to correctly understand "what really happens", don't you think?




Depends what understand means.  In general this isn't neccesarily the goal in the sciences, but rather we try to derive predictable relationships between observable phenomena.  The model we derive is useful if it is consistent with observable reality, whether or not it actually represents it on a fundamental level: i.e. the law of gravitation is just as valid if unobservable monkeys are pushing things around or in any other unlikely scenario.  Moreover, we would observe the exact same thing regardless of what is 'really happening': if the Flying Spaghetti Monster (p.b.u.h.) let us know tomorrow that he created every species throughout time, it still wouldn't effect the validity of evolutionary theory.  What's actually going on is besides the point, whether we understand it or not.

I see you have not answered my question as to how you determine what's "really going on".  If you cannot figure out how to do this, how can you maintain its importance to science?


Quote:

One method towards figuring it out is discarding theories that do not accurately describe the mechanics of the phenomenon.




How does that help?  That's how we could figure out what isn't going on, not what is going on.  Without some means to observe what is 'actually happening' in our system, all the pruning in the world won't help, as the possible conceptual explanations are infinite.


Quote:

Tell me this, when does wave function collapse happen in the double slit experiment?




I don't know- if your asking whether its in a determined state when nobody's looking I would say that's more a philosophical than scientific question so long as our observations and predictions are repeatable.  If I can accept that there's no neccesary order of events occuring when moving between refrence frames I can certainly accept that things may or may not be defined before we look.  Personally I never really got why we the matter was so important since by definition its not observable, but then I don't know much about the physics of anything, let alone QM.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14944019 - 08/18/11 06:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Viveka, why do you not think that a cat is an observer? I think the catinabox experiment is best replaced with a person in a box expeirment, or a rock in a box experiment, for otherwise we suffer the dillema of asking whether the cat is observing its state or not. If it was, then it wouldnt matter whether someone opened the box or not.


Schroedingers cat isn't an experiment, it's a thought exercise that is actually a pointed criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which seems to have become pervasive in pop culture more recently ever since that fucking what the bleep do we know movie came out and everyone starting trotting around the idea of superposition collapse as an actual causative factor in the unfolding of material phenomenon.  The abstraction is only relevant to our perspective, ie: the world will turn the same whether we observe it or not.  We don't even really know what light is but the light passing through slits will have the same effect on the wall before it regardless of our observation of it, provided our observation is unobtrusive, which it usually isn't, which is why all these awful ideas run rampant.  To believe otherwise is some form of delusional solipsism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14944040 - 08/18/11 06:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well, that's just like your opinion man.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: johnm214]
    #14944190 - 08/18/11 07:38 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Viveka said:

Well, if we are trying to understand a phenomenon in the material world it's pretty important to correctly understand "what really happens", don't you think?



Depends what understand means.  In general this isn't neccesarily the goal in the sciences, but rather we try to derive predictable relationships between observable phenomena.  The model we derive is useful if it is consistent with observable reality, whether or not it actually represents it on a fundamental level: i.e. the law of gravitation is just as valid if unobservable monkeys are pushing things around or in any other unlikely scenario.  Moreover, we would observe the exact same thing regardless of what is 'really happening': if the Flying Spaghetti Monster (p.b.u.h.) let us know tomorrow that he created every species throughout time, it still wouldn't effect the validity of evolutionary theory.  What's actually going on is besides the point, whether we understand it or not.

I see you have not answered my question as to how you determine what's "really going on".  If you cannot figure out how to do this, how can you maintain its importance to science?



Define "really going on".  You took my words "really happens" in regards to the result of the double slit experiment and abstracted it into an absurd question.  Let's focus those word a bit, I asserted that wave function collapse does not happen in the chain of causality that results in the pattern observed.  Rather, wave function collapse is only an abstraction in reference to our perception.  The pattern that is classically observed on the plate, with our eyes and other instruments of perception, did not get there as a result of "wave function collapse".  "Wave function collapse" is a non event in the material world, ie: doesn't happen.  Does that answer your question?

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Viveka said:
One method towards figuring it out is discarding theories that do not accurately describe the mechanics of the phenomenon.




How does that help?  That's how we could figure out what isn't going on, not what is going on.  Without some means to observe what is 'actually happening' in our system, all the pruning in the world won't help, as the possible conceptual explanations are infinite.




The problem is, we have limited time, so if we spend all this time discussing material phenomenon as if it is actually subject to the effects of our observation then we'll have no time to address "what really happens" to use your words.

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Viveka said:
Tell me this, when does wave function collapse happen in the double slit experiment?




I don't know- if your asking whether its in a determined state when nobody's looking I would say that's more a philosophical than scientific question so long as our observations and predictions are repeatable.  If I can accept that there's no neccesary order of events occuring when moving between refrence frames I can certainly accept that things may or may not be defined before we look. 




I'm saying an "event" "happens" just as it does regardless of whether we observe it or define it.  Everything else is just abstraction about what we perceive and interpret.

Quote:

Personally I never really got why we the matter was so important since by definition its not observable, but then I don't know much about the physics of anything, let alone QM.



Nor do I, at least technically, but I diverge on the former point - I don't just think it's not important, I think framing consideration around it is toxic to a sober understanding of nature.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14944203 - 08/18/11 07:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.



And in the many-worlds interpretation, wouldn't my opinion be rendered as absolute truth in some dimension :nut:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14944533 - 08/18/11 08:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

viveka, i wonder how you come to the knowledge that the cat is trully alive or dead? I mean sure intuitively this is the case. But if we just for a moment assume the cat is not considered to be 'observing' the system, why are you so sure of this? After all, the best theory says that the cat is both alive and dead.

I have a strong feeling this is wrong but i wouldnt say it so certainly. It is totally consistent that the universe exists in superposition unti lconsciously processed. Its not solipsism because potentially every conscious being can collapse the wave...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14944672 - 08/18/11 09:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Why does the cat's observation of the system have any bearing whatsoever on whether it's alive or dead?  If you lose consciousness, do you experience "life function collapse" because you are no longer observing your aliveness?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14944724 - 08/18/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.



And in the many-worlds interpretation, wouldn't my opinion be rendered as absolute truth in some dimension :nut:





No, because only what can happen happens in another universe.  Impossibilities dont happen anywhere.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14944804 - 08/18/11 09:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.






--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14945263 - 08/19/11 12:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:

Define "really going on".  You took my words "really happens" in regards to the result of the double slit experiment and abstracted it into an absurd question. 




What absurd question?  I simply asked how you would find out what's really going on and why you think that's important to science.  (For the third time now, I'll repeat my question as to how one could ever deduce what's really going on)

I didn't abstract anything so far as I can see: I asked what you were talking about and you confirmed that you were claiming "what's really going on" is the object of scientific investigation, i.e.:


Quote:

Viveka said:
Well, if we are trying to understand a phenomenon in the material world it's pretty important to correctly understand "what really happens", don't you think?




As for your question as to what "really going on" means, I'm referring to the fundamental interactions between physical objects that manifest the observed phenomena as opposed to practical models which allow accurate predictions of those phenomena regardless of whether they provide any accurate representation of the fundamental reality.

Quote:

Let's focus those word a bit, I asserted that wave function collapse does not happen in the chain of causality that results in the pattern observed.  Rather, wave function collapse is only an abstraction in reference to our perception.  The pattern that is classically observed on the plate, with our eyes and other instruments of perception, did not get there as a result of "wave function collapse".  "Wave function collapse" is a non event in the material world, ie: doesn't happen.  Does that answer your question?




No, I don't know what relevance this discussion has.

I've always treated the interpretations of QM and everything else to be simply models and simplistic reproductions of what actually occurs that may or many not represent reality.  Whether wave function collapse describes a real phenomena doesn't matter from a scientific standpoint per se.  As said earlier: science is about deriving useful information about the phenomena we observe which allows us to predict them.  "reality" is both not the point and not subject to investigation as far as I can tell, because all we can do is prove relationships and reject inaccurate models.

Quote:

Viveka said:

The problem is, we have limited time, so if we spend all this time discussing material phenomenon as if it is actually subject to the effects of our observation then we'll have no time to address "what really happens" to use your words.




Why?  Just because time periods are finite does not mean any particular investigation cannot be completed. 

Given that it is accepted that material phenomena do depend on our observations, and this has been proven in many instances, I don't get why you'd represent this as doubtful, i.e. saying: "if it is actually subject to the effects of our observations".  We've tested the uncertainty principle many times and found it to be accurate, so why the doubt?

Quote:

johnm214 said:

I'm saying an "event" "happens" just as it does regardless of whether we observe it or define it.  Everything else is just abstraction about what we perceive and interpret.




What evidence do you have of this?  This seems to be one of those things we cannot know and so just have to make assumptions about.  I don't see how you could claim to actually know one way or the other.  Just like how science presumes the laws of the universe are the same anywhere in the universe or at any time, until evidence otherwise demonstrates, the question of whether things occur when we don't observe them can not be scientifically answered.  As science depends on observation, and any observation of the even would be an observation, asking what happens when we don't observe is an unanswerable question.  For that reason we simply make assumptions.

This seems similar to the question of whether the world goes away when we don't observe it.  Since the expected observations are the same in either case, and therefore the matter is inherently unfalsifiable, its simply a philosophical question and not a scientific one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14945959 - 08/19/11 05:47 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Why does the cat's observation of the system have any bearing whatsoever on whether it's alive or dead?  If you lose consciousness, do you experience "life function collapse" because you are no longer observing your aliveness?




i dunno what life function collapse is...

if the cat is an observer like us then it would determine its alive state, assumedly.
if we open the box and see one state, then the cat also sees one state without having to open the box.
but if the cat is not considered to be a significant observer, then the system simply is not observed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14953550 - 08/20/11 06:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

For the third time now, I'll repeat my question as to how one could ever deduce what's really going on


Why don't you just get to your point instead of insisting that I answer some entirely vague question?  "What's really going on" - those are your words so why don't you answer what they are supposed to mean?  I already clarified what I was talking about regarding the double slit experiment and "what happens" to cause the plate to appear as it does.  What part of that didn't you understand? 

I'll even humor you further and answer that we can't ever deduce "what's really going on", especially since who even knows what you mean by that, however I do think we can accurately assert something concerning a situation with reasonably clear parameters like a lab experiment and it's results.  In this case I assert that the experimenter's observation of the experiment is not part of the chain of causality that produces the result - a pattern printed onto a plate.  Do you feel the need to repeat your question a fourth time?

Quote:

I'm referring to the fundamental interactions between physical objects that manifest the observed phenomena



Right, that's what I'm talking about too, as opposed to perceptions of phenomena that would occur regardless of if they were observed or not or any other layers of interpretation placed on it by an observer.

Quote:

    Quote:
    johnm214 said:

    I'm saying an "event" "happens" just as it does regardless of whether we observe it or define it.  Everything else is just abstraction about what we perceive and interpret.



What evidence do you have of this?  This seems to be one of those things we cannot know and so just have to make assumptions about.  I don't see how you could claim to actually know one way or the other.  Just like how science presumes the laws of the universe are the same anywhere in the universe or at any time, until evidence otherwise demonstrates, the question of whether things occur when we don't observe them can not be scientifically answered.  As science depends on observation, and any observation of the even would be an observation, asking what happens when we don't observe is an unanswerable question.  For that reason we simply make assumptions.

This seems similar to the question of whether the world goes away when we don't observe it.  Since the expected observations are the same in either case, and therefore the matter is inherently unfalsifiable, its simply a philosophical question and not a scientific one.



Do you believe the world will cease to exist when you die?  I don't.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14953554 - 08/20/11 06:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Viveka said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.



And in the many-worlds interpretation, wouldn't my opinion be rendered as absolute truth in some dimension :nut:





No, because only what can happen happens in another universe.  Impossibilities dont happen anywhere.




:rimshot:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14953588 - 08/20/11 06:11 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

if the cat is an observer like us then it would determine its alive state, assumedly.
if we open the box and see one state, then the cat also sees one state without having to open the box.
but if the cat is not considered to be a significant observer, then the system simply is not observed.



Scratchin' my head here...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14953768 - 08/20/11 06:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Quote:

For the third time now, I'll repeat my question as to how one could ever deduce what's really going on


Why don't you just get to your point instead of insisting that I answer some entirely vague question?  "What's really going on" - those are your words so why don't you answer what they are supposed to mean?  I already clarified what I was talking about regarding the double slit experiment and "what happens" to cause the plate to appear as it does.  What part of that didn't you understand? 




Why have you concluded that I didn't understand your clarification?  I simply repeated that question you have not yet answered.  You allege that they are my words, which of course they are, but as I have previously shown, they are words that you endorsed. 

You now ask me to "answer what they are supposed to mean", yet you did so previously and I complied.  As you've not alleged any deficiency in my prior explanation I'm at a loss to understand this request unless you didn't notice that I answered this previously.

Quote:

I'll even humor you further and answer that we can't ever deduce "what's really going on", especially since who even knows what you mean by that, however I do think we can accurately assert something concerning a situation with reasonably clear parameters like a lab experiment and it's results.




Again, I already answered your question as to what the concept of what's really going on means: the fundamental processes, interactions, which the system undergoes to produce the phenomena of interest.  Once more you appeal to some ambiguity but don't even allege any insufficiency in my previous answer. 

How does "accurately assert something concerning a situation" have any relevance to what's really going on, fundamentally?  This seems an entirely seperate concept from what I was asking.  For example we can measure time and position values for an object and derive that F=ma, yet this result is consistant with an infinite number of lower order processes which produce this relationship.  That the relation between force, mass, and acceleration holds does not provide us with any insight into what is actually happening fundamentally, perhaps there are any number of relevant process which might be represented as additional terms in this equation but which cancel out to F=ma.  Anything could be going on, we simply don't know.  (Einstein's later corrections demonstrate this aptly)



 
Quote:

In this case I assert that the experimenter's observation of the experiment is not part of the chain of causality that produces the result - a pattern printed onto a plate.  Do you feel the need to repeat your question a fourth time?





Yes.  What is the trouble with it?

As for your claim that the observation does not produce, therefore affect, the observed result, then how do you observe?  The uncertainty principle would seem to suggest any observation utilizing a medium with momentum would necessarily disturb the system and thus alter the system and the results to an unknowable extent, bounded by the uncertainty principle.  How do you avoid disturbing the system and therefore the results?


Quote:

 

Do you believe the world will cease to exist when you die?  I don't.




No I don't believe that.  Please answer the question that was in the quote this statement followed.  I've essentially repeated it above though: how do you observe the results of the experiment without changing those results by the process of observing due to the uncertainty principle's consequences?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: johnm214]
    #14954719 - 08/20/11 11:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

How do you observe the results of the experiment without changing those results by the process of observing due to the uncertainty principle's consequences?



First, the uncertainty principle does not indicate that the process of observing changes the unfolding of any phenomenon.  It will affect our ability to measure multiple properties of an object of study simultaneously, such as the position and trajectory of a "photon" (or even to "accurately" measure any property at all) but this is no way means that observation affects the chain of causality.  It affects our ability to quantify but not the impact or end result in a causal chain, which in my original assertion is the pattern printed onto a plate.

"The results of the experiment" is a weasel-y concept since it could be interpreted that various measurements about the behavior of "photons" are "the results of the experiment".  To avoid such ambiguity, I will treat the pattern printed onto the plate as the results of the double slit experiment.  With that established, I do not agree with your assertion that the uncertainty principle tells us that observing will change the results of the experiment.  The experiment is set up one way, as in the original double slit setup, an interference pattern is printed.  The experiment is set up another way, with an apparatus to detect "individual particles of light" at the slit, and the pattern printed onto the plate is affected.  Did the results change because the behavior of the "light particles" was being "observed"?  If you equate an apparatus getting in the way of the path of light as "observing", then you could argue in the affirmative, as the What the Bleep Do We Know film does.  I think it's completely disingenuous to do so.  The same assertion is often extended to suggest that a human observing with their senses, ie: looking, can have the same effect, this has been displayed right here in this thread.  I think that's bogus.  We can even use Schroedinger's Cat to retroactively address this nonsense.

Hopefully, we're now a little bit closer to being able to communicate about this in any sort of coherent manner.  Clearly, we need to keep the definition of terms reined in tightly for that to work.  Words like "results", "observation", "happens" can be stretched to suit any whim so that seems to be the biggest problem we face.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* So you think you know your math huh...
( 1 2 all )
Lana 5,264 29 04/30/03 06:20 PM
by ExtravagantDream
* Measuring the intensity of LIght Anonymous 746 6 05/17/03 10:23 AM
by matts
* computer problems thePatient 1,435 8 03/26/04 04:14 AM
by Seuss
* Why do I keep having this problem? User Exists 1,949 12 08/22/03 11:08 AM
by User Exists
* Black hole of Windows driver problems poke smot! 1,352 16 08/22/04 05:00 PM
by Ythan
* sound problem in linux Anonymous 954 12 07/14/04 10:10 PM
by monoamine
* computer problems blacksabbathrulz 1,405 11 02/06/04 02:17 AM
by Xochitl
* modem problems dog 1,215 9 10/03/03 09:54 PM
by dog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
5,530 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.