Home | Community | Message Board


Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

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!

Amazon Shop for: Sublime

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

An example of using the principles of logic.
    #1738968 - 07/22/03 07:09 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Among the first principles of Greek logic is the rule governing the truth and falsity of incompatible propositions:either that both cannot be true, though both may false, or that one must be true and the other false. Underlying this rule is an ontological axiom-a truth about reality-that the Greeks thought was self-evident; namely, that nothing can be and not be at the same time, and that nothing can both have and not have a certain characteristic or attribute at the same time.

Of the two presuppositions underlying the logic of truth (the first concerning the existence of an independent reality, the second concerning reality's being determinate in itself), the first is challenged by modern idealistic philosophies and the second by the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics. The realism of common sense, the realism that underlies all our dailiy activities, suffices, in my opinion, to dispose of the basic mistake made by idealistic philosophers.

The error involved in the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty lies in one extraordinary philosophical mistake made unwittingly or defiantly by twentieth-century physicists. It is the error of restricting reality to what is measureable by physicists, attributing to reality only its measureable characteristics. As I have pointed out earlier, Stephen Hawking et al, from Einstein on, identify time with physically measureable time. Physicists may not be interested in time they cannot measure, but that is quite different from saying unmeasureable time does not exist.

The same mistake is involved in converting Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty in our measurement of the position and velocity of a moving electron into the proposition that, at a given moment in time, the electron does not have a completely determinate velocity and position. The principle should be understood as attributing uncertainty only to our measurements in quantum mechanics.

That uncertainty, which is epistemic, or in our field of knowing, is fallaciously converted into an indeterminacy in the structure of reality, which then becomes ontological, not epistemic. The fact that the ontological determinateness of the electron's position and velocity is not measureable by physicists and so is of no interest to them does not mean it has no real existence, any more than time not measureable by physicists lacks reality.

The substitution of the word "indeterminacy" for the word "uncertainty" indicates the illicit conversion by the Copenhagen school of a subjective into an objective probability.

Agree or dissagree?

Fight it out amongst yourselves.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePyronate
Prying open mythird eye

Registered: 07/06/03
Posts: 100
Loc: Forever I walk among the ...
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1738981 - 07/22/03 07:17 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Agree.


--------------------
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom... keep that in mind at all times."

--Bill Hicks (RIP)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1738988 - 07/22/03 07:20 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Einstein said that "god does not play dice" with the universe. He spent much of his life trying to disprove Heisenberg's principle.

Physicists are rather fond of believing that logic does not govern quantum-events. Personally I believe that this only appears to be so because we do not have a full understanding of reality yet.

Indeterminate...I like that.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,183
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1739029 - 07/22/03 07:32 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Electrons seem very insignificant to me, I can punch this wall right now, and I know that the wall is there. That's the truth, and the quibbling of quantum mechanics nerds won't change my mind. I really don't care if they can't accurately measure the positions of the electrons in the wall. I don't lose any sleep over it.

As scientists continue to discover more underlying principles of physics, they might find that it all resolves into a system that makes sense. The fact is scientists are still very unclear as to why events happen on a quantum mechanics level. Hence their internal confusion and horrible sense of fashion.


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: pattern]
    #1739042 - 07/22/03 07:37 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

As scientists continue to discover more underlying principles of physics, they might find that it all resolves into a system that makes sense.

And that is actually a very scientific observation! Most physicists believe that the universe is, at some level or another, VERY orderly. String theory relies in some ways on this idea: that the universe is based on certain symmetrical principles. We think that the Final Theory will be full of symmetries and will be fairly "compact", at least compared to our current theories.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,183
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739097 - 07/22/03 07:54 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I agree with that! Personally I believe that the universe is made of a massive conglomeration of many simple things, following many simple rules, interacting to generate complexity.


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: pattern]
    #1739105 - 07/22/03 07:59 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

what if it was made up of a massive conglomeration of an infinite number of simple things? then it would not only generate complexity but uncertainty.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739122 - 07/22/03 08:05 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

yeah, but where will the room for authentic human achievement in a perfectly symmetrical reality? I see symmetry in nature, but I also see alot of anomaly.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Malachi]
    #1739129 - 07/22/03 08:06 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

what's wrong with uncertainty? unless there's uncertainty there's no room for achievement.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,275
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 6 months, 5 days
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Malachi]
    #1739271 - 07/22/03 08:47 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

There must be a specific cause or a combination of causes for each and every effect, even though we cannot measure and predict the cause(s), but such view also explains what we observe with quantum phenomena without violating the Heisenberg principle. We cannot measure, we thus cannot always predict, but everything (except for free will, i think) is explained by causes.

MAIA



--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Malachi]
    #1739716 - 07/22/03 11:02 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Pssst. I didn't say perfectly symmetrical  :wink:

There are certain "symmetries" that we find in physics. Some are relatively straight-forward (like Einsteins equivalence principle), and some are abstractly mathematical.

That is not to say that reality is symmetrical. Only that some parts of the universe are symmetrical or obey symmetries.

String theory is full of symmetries, but most of them are of the abstract kind  :smirk:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739885 - 07/22/03 11:55 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

"As scientists continue to discover more underlying principles of physics, they might find that it all resolves into a system that makes sense."

how can you say that, when every logical question that is asked genrates ten more?

Anyone who seriously believes in determinism needs to spend more time studying relativity. Also, Godel's incompleteness theorem:

There will always be certain kinds of problems that cannot be solved by systematic analysis, since within every system of axioms, questions always appear that can niether be proved nor disproved on the basis of the axioms that define the system.

thats pretty much the best verbal understanding of Godel that I can muster, he proved it in math, but im not a mathemetician.



--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1739906 - 07/23/03 12:04 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

If you ask a question, and it leads to more questions, that is a progression forward through the chain.

When we search for the Final Theory in physics, we are tracing the chain backwards to the FIRST peice.

M-Theory, Superstrings, GUTs, and Unified Fields. They're all examples of the underlying symmetries found by physics working backwards.

:wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739913 - 07/23/03 12:08 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

"M-Theory, Superstrings, GUTs, and Unified Fields. They're all examples of the underlying symmetries found by physics working backwards."

they are all crappy, incomplete theories that will eventually be wiped off the blackboard and replaced with some new trendy incomplete theory.

The true nature of the universe and humanity's understanding of it have an asymptotic relationship. We will approach total understanding getting closer and closer, but we will never get there. There will always be new things to explore and new skills to accquire. the universe is infinite.


--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1739921 - 07/23/03 12:10 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

On that issue, I guess we will have to agree to disagree :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739950 - 07/23/03 12:22 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

"On that issue, I guess we will have to agree to disagree"

awesome.  I really respect your civility.  I'll start paying more attention to your posts :smile:


--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1740017 - 07/23/03 12:54 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I think the ultimate irony is that the thing that struck down full scientific determinism and everyday logic,quantum mechanics,was completely derived from logic and determinism.
When you visit the sub atomic realm,things like logic and causiality don't mean shit. I think humans are very arrogant in the fact that they think they can grasp the ultimate truth through their imperfect minds. Like someone else in this thread stated,you will get closer and closer,but never quite get there.The universe is an irrational number and our minds like to think in fractions.

As anyone else here studied quantum mechanics and thought they lost some of their sanity? :nut:


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by grandmasterfat (07/23/03 01:26 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1740075 - 07/23/03 01:20 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


Among the first principles of Greek logic is the rule governing the truth and falsity of incompatible propositions:either that both cannot be true, though both may false, or that one must be true and the other false. Underlying this rule is an ontological axiom-a truth about reality-that the Greeks thought was self-evident; namely, that nothing can be and not be at the same time, and that nothing can both have and not have a certain characteristic or attribute at the same time.





I think were I stand on this issue is evident in my sig.

Quote:

The error involved in the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty lies in one extraordinary philosophical mistake made unwittingly or defiantly by twentieth-century physicists. It is the error of restricting reality to what is measureable by physicists, attributing to reality only its measureable characteristics. As I have pointed out earlier, Stephen Hawking et al, from Einstein on, identify time with physically measureable time. Physicists may not be interested in time they cannot measure, but that is quite different from saying unmeasureable time does not exist.





I think most higher end physicists don't actually hold the view that the only things that exist are scientifically measurable. They are scientists after all,and it's seen as kind of pointless to try to measure something that is immeasurable. And they deal with "unmeasurable time" time all the time (wow,I just used time three times in a row) in the sub atomic realm.
I think Paul Davies actually did a study were he sent out an anonymous questionaire to random physisists and suprisingly,most held religious and metaphysical belief systems.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/23/00
Posts: 1,718
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 days, 15 hours
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1740445 - 07/23/03 06:44 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quantum indeterminacy and Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty are actually two separate things.

Quantum indeterminacy is the observation that a single electron or photon can propagate as a wave, extended in space, where the square of the wave amplitude is proportional to the probability of finding the particle in a specific region.

It's similar (but not exactly so) to the following thought experiment: You give someone a box containing 1001 identical marbles and ask them which marble is the 1001th one, the "extra" marble. The answer is not determinate, it depends on how you look for the marble, and on what the other marbles are doing. For example, you can partition the box into imaginary compartments containing 10 marbles each, except for one that contains 11 marbles. That is one way of localizing the extra marble. Then shake the marbles in that compartment to make the "extraness" propagate into the surroundings. The next time you look for the extra marble its location will be indeterminate again, but a little less indeterminate than the first time.

One could even define a wave function for the extra marble by calculating the density of marbles at various places in the box, and then subtract the corresponding density for a box with 1000 marbles evenly spread out (the background "vacuum state").

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that some measurements are mutually incompatible, like position and momentum. This is a natural consequence of the wave description, since there is a mathematical relationship between the length of a wavetrain (uncertainty of position) and the spread of its spectrum of wavelengths (uncertainty of momentum).

What this boils down to is that our conception of an electron as a tiny particle with a well-defined newtonian momentum and position is not correct. There is no conflict with logic. But momentum is well-defined only in the macroscopic world. On the quantum level it is equivalent to wavelength, and wavelength is only well-defined for pure sine waves of infinite extent. Those are idealizations, real waves never look exactly like that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1740574 - 07/23/03 10:44 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

There are a couple of reasons I don't post here anymore. The amount of available time I have is just one.

The point(s) I was making have been missed by many, primarily because of their familiarity with science instead of philosophy. Your interpretation, while certainly the most cogent of the lot, has a only a slight resemblance to the way these facts have been interpreted by many physicists and certainly the understanding of these principles by the masses educated as they are by the popular press.

For a completely different take on the interpretation of the facts by another physicist read on.

"One of the first things that a student in science or engineering acquires at the beginning of his college career is a sublime confidence in the objectivity of the scientific method and the unimpeachable status of the results thereof, along with a rather critical and condescending attitude toward other fields of learning which operate on a less exact basis. I still have a very vivid recollection of the amusement with which my classmates and I looked upon a statement in our economics textbook wherein the author commented on the theory of wages which he had just expounded at great length. This statement admitted that the theory did not produce the right results, but the author went on to say that he could not think of any better explanation, and consequently this one must be right anyway. Certainly, we students told ourselves, it was a pleasure to be identified with a branch of knowledge in which conclusions are reached by logical and mathematical processes rather than by any such ridiculous reasoning as this.

But those of us who have subsequently had occasion to leave the beaten path in the course of research work of one kind or another have been thoroughly disillusioned on this score. In spite of the high ideals to which the scientific world subscribes in theory, today?s best guess is just as firmly enthroned in the field of science as it is in economics or any other of the less ?exact? branches of knowledge, and the extent to which general acceptance is taken as the equivalent of proof in present-day scientific practice is nothing short of astounding. It is true that the areas in which the facts have been positively and unequivocally established are much larger in science than in these other fields, but outside of these fully explored areas the scientist is just as reluctant to admit ignorance as his counterparts in other disciplines, and just as prone to present his opinion or that of the ?authorities? in his field as positive knowledge. There is, in fact, a very general tendency to elevate currently popular scientific theories and assumptions to the status of incontestable articles of faith whose validity must not be questioned, and the path of the innovator who dares to take issue with these cherished doctrines is thorny indeed.

The most serious aspect of this policy is that it tends to perpetuate basic errors when they are once made. Inevitably the theorists will take a wrong turn sooner or later, and present practice sets up an almost impassible roadblock in the way of getting back on the right track. This situation is greatly aggravated by what some observers have called the ?epicyclical? character of much of present-day physical theory. When a theory encounters difficulties of a serious nature, it is no longer fashionable to abandon it, as would have been done in an earlier era. The present practice is to ?save? the theory by adding the equivalent of one of the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy. Then when further trouble develops another epicycle is added, and so on. Each addition not only buries the errors of the original theory that much deeper and makes them that much harder to deal with, but also puts the originator of a new and better theory in a position where he cannot isolate the primary issue and meet it squarely; he must contend with all of the epicycles at the same time, however irrelevant they may actually be.

One of the most ?epicyclical? of all physical theories is the nuclear theory of the atom. I am continually coming into conflict with this theory in my work, and while it has not been difficult to demonstrate the shortcomings of this theory in the particular applications with which I have been concerned, the theory and its coterie of epicycles are so firmly embedded in so much of present-day scientific thought that even the most glaring deficiencies make little impression on the general standing of the theory as long as they are exposed one by one in their separate areas. The usual reaction to a demonstration of the failure of the theory in any specific application is quite reminiscent of the attitude of the author of the economics textbook. ?Perhaps I will have to admit that the theory gives the wrong answers in the particular case under consideration,? the physicist says, ?but it must be correct as a general proposition anyway, because everyone who knows anything about science accepts it.? In view of this prevailing attitude which makes it impossible to deal with the situation on an item by item basis, it has seemed necessary to undertake a critical appraisal of the structure as a whole, to show how utterly untenable the cntire theory becomes when it is examined in the light of the immense amount of experimental knowledge now at our command. As the facts brought out in this work demonstrate, there never was any adequate experimental basis for the theory in the first place--the originators simply jumped to conclusions without considering the possible alternative explanations of the results of their experiments--and the advance of knowledge in the intervening half-century has completely destroyed the support which the theory originally derived from the scientific ideas and beliefs prevailing at the time it was originated. The conclusions of this work will no doubt be extremely distasteful to those who have been so confident of the validity of their atomic theory for so many years, but the facts are clear and unmistakable once anyone takes a good look at them. This situation must be faced eventually, and the longer the reckoning is postponed the greater the cost. However painful the necessary readjustment of thinking may be, the sooner it is accomplished the sooner it will be possible to get some tangible benefits out of the tremendous amount of time, money and effort that are now being wasted in futile attempts to find answers to meaningless problems and to establish the nature and properties of non-existent particles and forces."

For more read here.

The gist of my initial post, Q.E.D., was that not only is the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle incorrect when viewed through the paradigm of Newtonian physics but that philosophical idealism which uses that model to bolster its standing is completely incorrect.

Check out the link. I think you and others interested in physics should find it interesting.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Sublime

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Use of Logic
( 1 2 all )
Veritas 2,247 33 06/12/06 10:02 PM
by fireworks_god
* why are there so many loopholes, blanks, and contradictions in logic?
( 1 2 3 all )
MrBuzin 4,347 40 02/20/07 03:49 PM
by shroomydan
* Logic
( 1 2 all )
shroomydan 2,301 34 06/16/06 07:30 AM
by slaphappy
* Logic as a coping strategy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
AsanteA 8,069 100 06/19/08 01:18 AM
by Rose
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 4,794 45 10/15/05 01:19 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Logic
( 1 2 all )
trendalM 1,129 23 05/08/03 05:15 PM
by NapkinOfDoom
* pitfalls of logic *DELETED* Sophistic Radiance 1,057 19 12/05/07 04:06 PM
by Icelander
* Gravity is fault logic, it a messup whit vacuum?
( 1 2 all )
Gomp 1,738 29 12/12/04 07:03 PM
by oceansize

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
2,089 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.112 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 17 queries.