Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Quantum Reality And Objectivism

Rate this topic


Guest Jerry

Recommended Posts

Hey guys thanks for answering my question a few weeks back on the Vietnam/altruism quote from Rand.

I have been studying Objectivism on and off for about a year now. I have decided to read Peikoffs book again (I read it last year at this time) so I can better assimilate what I have picked up from web sites and various other books from Rand on Objectivism.

I was wondering what is the proper Objectivist response to the claims of shrodingers cat and indeterminate reality? Searches on the net have turned up a dearth of info at best regarding Objectivism and quantum reality. I submitted a question to TOC on this issue but of coarse who knows when or if it will be answered.

My apologies if this has already been discussed here. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll try a direct answer. To date I have not found any reputable reference that reconciles wave-particle duality with objectivism, much less the cat paradox.

My admittedly limited readings suggest the strict objectivist rejects the implications of quantum physics, while simultaneously accepting the physical reality that quantum derived devices produce, i.e., lasers, tunnel diodes, photo-electric cells, etc. To support this "position", some have sought out somewhat less than mainstream scientific proposals, for example that advanced by Dr. Randell Mills (referenced at http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/quantummechanics.asp).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I am fully aware of the a is a axioms etc etc.

I did come acros this web site yesterday after making this post.

http://www.objectivescience.com/

They seem to be rebutting with a bells theorm or something like that. To be honest with you it kind of started to get in over my head with it. Perhaps some of you guys that are more adept at physics than I can elaborate.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest,

I read the first 4 or 5 papers that are linked on the right side of the web page cited. In some cases there are assumptions made that violate some of the principles that are later used to support the case. I beg relief from a rigorous analysis and partial refutation due to the demands of family and attempting to juggle full-time employment while obtaining an MBA within a year's time-frame. As an aside to a comment in one of the papers, quantum mechanics and general relativity are not yet unified, but no physicist I know wishes to see one sacrificed at the altar of the other. I personally doubt that Einstein would either, as he is somewhat the father of both theories - hopefully you are aware his Nobel prize was primarily for his 1905 paper on the photo-electric effect, a decidedly quantum affair.

However, I'd like to set that discussion aside for a moment for a few of statements, and a probably suspect conclusion.

I am a physicist who finds many aspects of objectivism interesting.

A dichotomy exists between some facets of physics and objectivism.

Physics is an evolving field.

Philosophy (to include objectivism) is an evolving field.

It seems rational to reserve opinion as to "fact" until one the conflicting schools of thought matures into a pure state of "laws" (a state neither has achieved).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lbridges

Are you trying to imply (without having to assert and defend the idea outright) that the Law of Identity is NOT a 'mature' law and is instead just an 'evolving' hypothesis? On what basis do you make such a claim? And without the law of identity, on what basis do you make ANY claim?

If "identity" is *not* a 'mature' law, you cannot speak of any act as being 'rational' - including the withholding of judgement. If it *is* a 'mature' law, contradictions to that law must be recognized as such and dismissed. Further, new explanations - ones which do not contradict the law - must be sought to explain observations.

In *either* case, one does NOT 'reserve' judgement. That is simply intellectual abdication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radcap,

I made no assertion about any specific topic in objectivism.

In turn, are you claiming that objectivism is a dead science? By this I ask is there nothing is left to be discussed? Are all premises discovered, and has evidence been provided advancing from premise to law - yielding 100% certainty to any rational person?

As to the sciences portion (although you didn't directly ask), I have personally observed quantum effects that imply duality and have also seen convincing arguments that hidden variables cannot exist (the topic of the post to which I was replying). This may imply objectivism has limitations in extreme applications, just as Newton's laws of motion have been found with virtually 100% certainty to have limitations under extremes of velocity or gravity. If you believe objectivism is dead and cannot evolve, then I assume there is nothing further for me to discuss here.

It is certainly your prerogative to view my position as intellectual abdication. I prefer to consider it as belief in what I have witnessed at this stage in life, coupled with having a mind open to further revelations of nature's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lb

You do not answer my questions, you deny you made ANY assertions (implicit or explicit), and then you expect me to answer yours? Interesting approach to a discussion. Not rational, but interesting.

UNTIL you answer those question, all you have done is engage in EVASION. Your post makes further (and fallacious) assertions WITHOUT addressing the central issue - the conflict between the Law of Identity and your 'personal observations'. I identified this conflict. I asked you to address it. You refused, and continued with your assertions unabated.

That is not rational.

UNTIL you address that conflict, ANY additional posts, including the one above, have NO meaning whatsoever.

So - please - either answer the questions I asked - OR - retire from the conversation without further comment.

To make clear what I was asking, I will repeat my questions:

1. a- Is the Law of Identity a 'mature' law or is it merely an 'evolving' hypothesis'? b - Why?

2. a - If the Law of Identity is merely an 'evolving' hypothesis (ie something which is possibly wrong), on what basis do you make a claim to rationality? b - Additionally, on what basis do you make a claim to ANYTHING *without* that law?

3. a - If the Law of Identity IS a 'mature' law, then on what basis do accept contradictions to it (ie conclusions you have drawn from 'personal observations')? b - Furthermore, on what basis do you claim such acceptance is logical (since logic is the art of NON-contradictory identification)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap, I will attempt an answer that presents my current level of understanding.

I believe the law of identity at its heart says A=A. On one level this is a rather simple definition of the equals sign. Philosophically, I suppose this could be generalized to say a tree is a tree, or to say that without an identity a thing would in fact be a no-thing. All seems sort of self evident to me. A corollary would be a tree is not a cat, also self evident.

A minor difficulty arises just a moment later in time. A is no longer A. Yes, it has very much the same characteristics as A, but it has changed. Admittedly not from a tree to a cat, but change it did. Does this violate the "intent" of the law? I think not.

However, where I reserve judgment concerns certain aspects of objectivism as I believe it is evolving. Specifically, assertions made by some that the scientific duality concept can not exist as it violates this law. There is overwhelming physical evidence of duality in nature, including everyday events we all witness (does anyone require examples?). That a particle or photon can have two aspects to our perception does not mean it has violated the law of identity, it is still following the A=A concept regardless of how our perception of it changes. Philosophers who reject reality however have my scorn. How can one discuss anything rationally if physical reality is not accepted? To my own sense of logic this seems equivalent to asserting that I am the only entity in the universe and all else is but one of my dreams.

Perhaps you feel I have still not answered your question. In which case I would ask for you to identify a specific aspect of identity you think I have rejected. I was merely pointing out to "guest" that some advocates of objectivism (that he identified) and some advocates of quantum mechanics believes there to be a dichotomy, and that both avenues of thought continue to evolve.

BTW, it is your nature to always challenge with such fatuous statements as "UNTIL you address that conflict, ANY additional posts, including the one above, have NO meaning whatsoever."? The underlining being my emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is overwhelming physical evidence of duality in nature, including everyday events we all witness (does anyone require examples?).

I can't think of any (in fact, I don't quite know what you mean by "duality" here) so do post some examples please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was referring to is the quantum assertion of wave-particle duality. A couple of examples for photons would be:

wave nature: light bending through a prism, light coming off the logo on a VISA card, rainbows, etc.

particle nature: the result of passing through the beam of a photo-electrical cell at a shop, or a garage door. BTW, the photo-electric effect was the primary item for which Einstein won the Nobel prize. In some circles he is considered the father of quantum mechanics even though he was prominent in the EPR issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was referring to is the quantum assertion of wave-particle duality.  A couple of examples for photons would be:

wave nature:  light bending through a prism, light coming off the logo on a VISA card, rainbows, etc.

particle nature: the result of passing through the beam of a photo-electrical cell at a shop, or a garage door.  BTW, the photo-electric effect was the primary item for which Einstein won the Nobel prize.  In some circles he is considered the father of quantum mechanics even though he was prominent in the EPR issue.

I see.

I don't know what the big deal about this "wave-particle duality" is. Light is light; nothing more, nothing less. It is in the nature of light to break up to its constituent colors when going through a prism, as if it were composed of interfering waves. It is in the nature of light to send off electrons from metal surfaces as if it were composed of particles. But that doesn't mean that light is a wave (a wave in what?) or "a" particle. Light is light.

[edit]To advance science objectively means to[/edit] take stock of what we know and integrate it. For example, when enough was discovered about the nature of sound, scientists recognized that sound is to the molecules of air exactly what a wave in water is to the molecules of water. To know how waves propagate in water is to know how sound propagates in air; we have integrated our knowledge of air and water and arrived at a new abstraction. The analogy works because waves do indeed work the same way in water and air; the concept thus formed is therefore valid.

It is easy to see, isn't it, that the analogy cannot just as simply be extended to light: water waves arise from the motion of water molecules; sound waves arise from the motion of air molecules; light waves arise from the motion of ... BLANK OUT! Until (or rather, unless) we discover some day that there is an ether which is composed of little dotlike things whose motion results in light, much the way the motion of water molecules result in waves, we cannot objectively call light a wave in anything.

The behavior of light sometimes resembles the behavior of water waves and sound, but only to the extent that it actually resembles them. To go beyond this and say that "light is a wave" is nothing but arbitrary speculation. It may be helpful sometimes to imagine light as something like a wave (and at other times to imagine it as something like a "gas" made up of particles) but one should know where the bounds of these analogies are: the wave analogy is only valid to the extent that light behaves like a wave; the particle analogy is only valid to the extent that light behaves like particles. Being like a wave to some extent does not make light a wave; being like particles to some extent does not make light particles.

Light is just what it is; if we cannot find anything to liken it to--well, tough luck.

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A is no longer A. Yes, it has very much the same characteristics as A, but it has changed"

You have the beginnings of a Heraclitian argument here. Of course, skepticism always has a basis in Heraclitian philosophy - because everything supposedly changes, how can one claim 'knowledge' of anything? That is the Heraclitian root of skepticism.

Like you, Heraclitus also stated stated that change exists all around us. He stated everything changes and is always changing. He is the source of the saying "A man cannot step into the same river twice".

From this starting point, Heraclitus determined that change involves contradiction. His view was: after 'change' we have the same thing which is not the same ("it has very much the same characteristics as A, but it has changed" - ie is no longer A but something else), as opposed to substitution, where we have a different thing from that which existed before. As such, a 'changing' thing is an 'identity' of opposites. It both is and is not what it was and what it will be.

This is an obvious contradiction. And BECAUSE it is an obvious contradiction, Heraclitus came to the conclusion that change *necessarily* involves contradiction. Furthermore, because all the world involves change, the world itself is contradictory.

Now, where Heraclitus acknowledged the contradiction and proceeded to discarded the concept identity because of it, you seek to obliterate the concept identity by attempting to integrate contradiction INTO identity. And you do this with a simple word substitution.

You substitute the term "duality" for "contradiction".

But such a substitution does not change the nature of the concepts involved. The contradiction still exists. And you accept it as valid.

Since both logic and identity state contradiction does not and cannot exist, this means the acceptance of contradiction (your so-called "duality") is a rejection of BOTH logic and identity.

Based upon this, if you had answered my questions DIRECTLY, as I asked MULTIPLE times, the responses would have been something like this:

1a. The Law of Identity is a 'mature' law.

1b. It is a 'mature' law because all things have identity. BUT all things 'change' as well. So identity includes "duality" (contradiction).

2a. The Law of Identity is a mature law, so I can make the claim to rationality. And I can claim rationality because I do not accept contradiction. I accept "duality".

2b. See 2a

3a. As I said, I don't accept contradiction. I accept "duality". I accept that a thing can have two opposite attributes and NOT be considered a contradiction. For example, a stick is solid. But it is also NOT solid (when observed in water) - just as a photon is both a wave and not a wave (or is both a particle and not a particle) - depending upon the observation of course. Surely you don't consider THAT a contradiction!

3b. I claim logic because I accept "duality" NOT contradiction.

--

As an aside to the last sentence in your prior post, I find it unfortunate that I must point out that evasion is not an accepted form of discourse here and that warning against FURTHER evasion is NOT, as you termed it "fatuous". To answer your question DIRECTLY:

Yes - it IS in my 'nature' to WARN people that their IRRATIONAL approach to discussion has NO intellectual content and as such will NOT be tolerated. In fact, since I am a moderator, it is part of my JOB to make such warnings. IF you have a problem with such warnings, I suggest pursuing your form of discourse elsewhere, because you will receive them any time you engage in such practices.

I hope that makes the point crystal clear to you now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap,

I did not evade your question even though you asserted something I did not state. Then in your last post you do so again. I did not advance a "Heraclitian argument". I stated a fact, then rejected that argument as not being valid for consideration regarding identity. From this I must conclude irrationality seems more likely to be found in your posts than mine. I looked up the definition of fatuous to ensure I had not misused it, I don't believe I have.

*********************

Capitalism Forever,

I believe we may be in agreement. In my original post I stated (somewhat less elegantly than you) that light is what it is (that it obeys A=A), that we do not yet fully understand what the "A" is at this point in time, and that understanding about what it is has been evolving, and will continue to evolve. Perhaps you can excuse me as I am not a philosophy major, just an interested bystander. I know little of how to employ terms when they have specific meaning to my science and something different to yours - causality being one I finally researched yesterday after repeatedly misunderstanding it here. I simply gave a few examples of what is generally considered candidates for duality in a scientific sense and are fully defined in the language of physics. My point to all this is that should quantum mechanics interpretations be proven false, then so be it, physics opens a new door. However, should quantum mechanics be shown as "truth", it should not, IMHO, signal the death knell for objectivism, but also simply open another new door. Said another way, and referring obliquely to your post, if the ether was a cornerstone for your present understanding, yet incontestably found not to exist, would you put aside your belief in the validity of objectivism as a way of looking at life, and how you conduct yourself in this life? This line of my reasoning is along the lines of why I asked RadCap if he thought that objectivism was dead, i.e., nothing else could be added or learned, it was closed and all proven.

I really would like an answer to that question, because if it is the generally accepted position of this forum that all that can be known (of objectivism) is known and proven, then I need not be banned or relegated to the simply irrational pile, I will move along of my own volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lbridges

When you do not answer questions put to you, despite repeated requests for such answers, your actions ARE evasion. Protests to the contrary will not change that fact, no matter how many times you make them.

In my last post I stated you have the beginnings of a Heraclitian argument. I explained why, and what such an argument means, in much detail. Your response to my claim and my support? Nothing more than a petulant "No, I didn't". In other words, you made an assertion - an assertion that I am wrong. Now, in a RATIONAL conversation, you would have to back up that assertion. So - did you? Let's see:

Did you provide evidence for your assertion? No.

Did you provide a contradictory argument? No.

Did you address even ONE of the points presented against your 'position'? No.

What did you do? You simply made your unsupported assertion and then called me irrational. In other words, you engaged in MORE evasion and then added mudslinging to your logical fallacy offenses.

Put simply, as I have previously stated, that is NOT the means of engaging in rational discussion. And, as I also indicated previously, ONLY rational means of discussion are tolerated here. Since you seem intent on disregarding this standard, regardless of how many warnings you are given to the contrary, I suggest you 'move on'. There is nothing for you here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ibridges, you seem to be at cross purposes. Are you arguing about Objectivism being alive, or about Quantum Mechanics? The issue here concerns A=A, since this is the only part of Objectivism that Quantum Mechanics can possibly contradict. Your first argument about A=A is Heraclitean and you should admit that. A=A can't be elaborated upon or mature in any way, its the very base of knowledge. So RedCap was right to question you here.

I have taken some basic courses in Physics, and I'm familiar with diffraction patterns. However, I have no trouble reconciling the law of identity with the physics. Perhaps you could explain your troubles more specifically?.

I view some of the explanations of Q.M. with skepticism, notably the uncertainty principle and Shrodingers cat. I think that the idea of a particle as a wave of probability is the best so far. But I trust the mathematical formulas, they are really the core of this theory. This is probably because the science was partially created by several different mathematicians. What the experiments seem to say, irrefutably, is that a particle behaves as a probability wave, cancelling with other particles. This is plausable if you consider that a particle is really a state of energy. But perhaps scientists and philosophers misunderstand each other here... there is no reason to assume this contradicts A=A. Let me be clear: A=A is not merely a definition of the equals sign. It is a definition and base of our knowledge. Q. M. may shake up our idea of reality on a fundamental level, but nevertheless - we still say that the state of energy exists, whatever form it takes- whether it be wave or particle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radcap,

As to the Heraclitian argument: It surely must be self-evident to any thinking being that things do change from moment to moment, however infinitesimally. My original post stated that it seemed unlikely to have validity concerning the law of identity since the nature of the thing remained unchanged. What evidence or contradictory argument did I need to make? Were you asking me to argue for something I don't believe - that a falling dandruff flake has changed my nature or identity?

I do not believe, as you seem to, that I substituted duality for contradiction. That may well be due to a lack of understanding and application of philosophy jargon on my part. I used the word in a scientific sense, as that is my training.

I am unaware of the definition for a 'mature' law and so could not defend a response to an opponent. From the 3 choices you provided to me, I choose category 3. However, this should not be construed as a rejection of the concept of identity. My position would be that duality (wave & particle existence) could be within the scope of the "identity" of a thing. If this means I have stated that the Law of Identity is not 'mature', then yes I am so stating. If this condition can be met within the law, then I am willing to state I believe the "Law" meets the general criteria for a law in science, i.e., it has never been shown to be violated (law of thermodynamics). Again, I am unsure of your definition of 'mature'.

Only other readers can judge where the mudslinging began, as we surely disagree. However, your bottom line is correct.

I assume you to be a young man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to laugh at lb's post. He now claims that he does not understand the term 'mature' in this context and asserts it is MY term. As such, he claims he could not respond to my posts. Unfortunately, his claims are as fallacious as his previous claims as I requested numerous times (and to which he did not question the term). The reason for this is that lb HIMSELF is the one who introduced both the concepts 'mature' AND 'evolving' into this conversation:

"Physics is an evolving field.

Philosophy (to include objectivism) is an evolving field.

It seems rational to reserve opinion as to "fact" until one the conflicting schools of thought matures into a pure state of "laws" (a state neither has achieved)."

In addition to this, lb AGAIN makes an unsupported assertion. He now states that he does not, as I claimed, subtitute duality for contradiction. Did he define each and explain how duality is not in this instance contradiction, as I pointed out? No. Did he do anything to explain how or why my argument was wrong or his was right? No. He merely asserted this was the case.

All of this is ample evidence that lb has a problem following the rules of logic when it comes to rational discourse. Combined with his parting attempt at another smear, and the fact that he was warned multiple times on what qualified as rational discourse on this forum, he leaves me no choice but to place a warning on his account, thereby subjecting any and all further posts from him to review before posting.

Any attempt to circumvent this account warning will result in the deletion of that post and banning from the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view some of the explanations of Q.M. with skepticism, notably the uncertainty principle and Shrodingers cat.

Viewing skepticism with skepticism--now there's an idea! ;)

But perhaps scientists and philosophers misunderstand each other here...

I would say that Objectivist philosophers understand "scientists" like Schrodinger perfectly: They hate objective reality, and that's why they come up with cheap philosophical tricks like "the cat that's both dead and alive."

(And just how cheap that trick is! The police routinely looks at a corpse and tells how long it has been dead. It is equally possible to find out how long a cat has been dead. Observing the cat doesn't kill it; it's the poison that kills it. The cat doesn't die when we observe it; it dies when it is poisoned-------as any three-year-old will tell!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shrodingers cat is a thought experiment. A similar sort of strangeness does occur at the quantum level, but quantum states break down in any structure bigger than a molecule, and the idea of a cat being in a quantum state is just silly. And consciousness does not have the power to change any quantum states, its the other way around- quantum states must resolve before we can sense them. Also the idea that because something is a "duality" that means it contradicts the law of identity is rather absurd. Its only that an energy state has different aspects, and we're not smart enough to understand them yet without confusing our English. Like I said, the one thing I must accept about quantum theory is the efficiency of its equations, not the power of its advocates to explain reality.

ibridges didn't answer my question ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The Copenhagen interpretation is NOT the only interpretation and it is by no means

universally agreed upon. Here are some other interpretations of quantum strangeness.

1. Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible

places at once. This view is held by Richard Feynman and other proponents of QED.

2. The Undefined Wholeness Interpretation. Quantum wholeness suggests that everything is inherently interconnected. This connection is unaffected by time or space. Adherents include David Bohm, Fritjof Capra, and Walter Heitler. However, Abner Shimony has shown that the wave entanglement phenomena cannot be used to transmit information faster than light. Take this interpretation with a grain of salt.

3. The Many-Worlds Interpretation. There are an increasing number of parallel worlds. Every possible outcome of every decision actually occurs, but it does so by splitting off into new, parallel universes (Wolf, 1988). Formulated in 1957, by Hugh Evertt, one of its chief adherents today is Paul Davies (1980). Some objections include Occam's Razor and the principle of falsifiability.

4. The Quantum Order Interpretation. The quantum world obeys an order which is too far-removed from current conceptions to be well-understood by current theory. Its chief adherent today is quantum theorist David Finkelstein.

5. The Neorealism Interpretation. The world is composed of ordinary objects and is ruled by logic and order. The champions of this view were several pioneers in quantum mechanics including Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, and Prince Louis de Broglie.

6. The World as Duality Interpretation. The world consists of potentials and actualities. Our everyday world is real, but atoms and subatomic particles only exist in the form of possibilities. This interpretation was described by Werner Heisenberg.

My personal view is that there are no electrons per se, only "clouds" which "coalesce" at certain positions according to a certain order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the arguments made for the 'strangeness' of quantum mechanics violate the laws of logic and the law of identity. Any attempts to explain them in contradiction to these laws automatically invalidates them. For example - seeing the 'strangeness' of a pencil being 'bent' when placed into water and trying to explain such 'strangeness' by claiming water is an example of a violation of the law of identity and so identity (and not the conclusion in contradiction to it) is invalid.

That is what current qm theories do. They see x and devise an explanation which violates the law of idendity. Instead of discarding the theory because of this violation, they accept it and discard identity.

Of course any attempt to do so simply invalidates their entire arguments. If identity does not exist, then they cannot make ANY claims whatsoever. So any anti-identity theory is simply an elaborate fallacy - the fallacy of stolen concept.

(Update: there is an even better example. Currently there is a debate about the age of the universe among astronomers. Measuring the red-shift of certain stars in multiple galaxies results in an age of the universe which is much younger than previously thought - 8-12billion yrs. However, by measuring the hydrogen output of certain stars, their age has been placed beyond this time frame - ie 15-16 billion years old.

Now - the observations are not disputed. There is a specific red-shift. And there is specific hydrogen in existence. The observations are not invalid. And many things in reality can be predicted based on these observations. Yet the conclusions based upon those observations are in direct contradiction to each other.

What is one to do about this contradiction?

A logical person (a person who uses the art of non-contradictory identification) would say "Well, obviously something is wrong with one or both of the conclusions/theories. The universe cannot be both 12 and 16 billion years old."

A person who supports current qm theory - if he were being consistant - would say: "Well - obviously the universe both is and is not 12 billion years old - and is and is not 16 billion years old."

What is the difference between these two people? Simple:

One acknowledges that existents have identity and that identity does not allow for contradiction. He therefore understands man's conclusions about existence in at least one of these instances are wrong.

The other accepts contradiction and thus dismisses identity and existence altogether. He says existence does not exist (because to exist is to BE something - ie to HAVE identity. Or as AR puts it "Existence IS identity"). - And yet, interestingly - he still makes claims ABOUT existence. THAT is the stolen concept.

The second man denies existence and yet still tries to reference exactly that which he denies.

Such a man automatically removes himself from ANY rational discussion with the mere utterance of such a position. He places himself outside rationality and thus outside any need for the rational to recognize him (in the same way and for the same reason one simply ignores unsupported assertions. In both cases, there is literally NOTHING being referenced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...