Comments

  • Meat Plant Paradox!
    ↪180 Proof
    5.2k

    Can you ethically justify eating meat?— Kaz1983


    Why bother? Besides, it's the wrong question.

    Plants are nourished by photosynthesis; animals, however, survive by devouring plants or devouring other animals or even by cannibalizing their own kind. So, except plants, the living devour the dead - carcasses (& organic detritus), raw or cooked - which belongs to the background, or embodiment, of all ethical concern and therefore itself cannot be an ethical concern; thus, how (or whom!), rather than what, we eat is a matter of ethics (e g. the industrialized meat & dairy industry and, thereby, its meat & dairy products).

    Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming. (Also, plant-based diary and @home DIY hydro- & aqua- ponics kits are becoming more widely available ...)

    Until then, however, my industrial meat products diet will remain "unjustified" because veganism, etc I find undernourishing and makes me miserable. Life's a grind enough and way too short to be withered away by any arbitrary ascesis ... :death: :flower:     — 180 Proof

    :fire: :fire: :fire: Excellent point! Eating each other to the point of even cannibalism is a fact of life that we, as of now, can't do anything about. Ergo, let's not get bogged down in what is an unsolvable problem (what we eat?) and instead focus on the doable (how we eat?).

    Nevertheless, you do concede that what some of us are worried about - what we eat? - will become moot one day, with the widespread availability of cultured/synthetic meat. Sooner the better.

    However, this isn't the issue I'm interested in. What I want an opinion on is how eating animals seem justified because given that plants eat animals, it seems only fair that we eat plants. Despite the logic (tit-for-tat strategy) being more game-theoretic than moral, clearly there's an ethical dimension to it.

    Apollodorus pointed out that humans can reason and tit for tat either isn't reasonable or is in conflict with morality. At least that's what I think he meant. Yet, as I see it, giving somene (plants & animals) a taste of their own medicine (eating them as they eat us) seems to be a fully legit protocol in a moral sense.

    I was trying so hard, too hard perhaps, to discover the paradox and I just had an eureka moment as I was writing this post. Here's the paradox

    1. Vegans don't want to eat meat. They advice that we eat plants.

    2. A justification for eating plants is tit for tat: plants eat animals and so why not eat them too?

    3. If all of the above is true then we're justified in eating animals because they too eat us.

    The paradox: Veganism justifies non-vegetarianism!
  • If you could ask god one question what would it be?
    Well, if we're going to reduce God to a Search Engine the likes of Google, I'd ask Google...er...God,

    How did you (God) become omniscient (How? Ancient Wisdom For Modern Readers)? There has to be a way of becoming omniscient. How else is God omniscient? I could then myself become omniscient and answer my own and other's questions. It's a good strategy to have a spare wheel (stepney), right? The stepney: The benchwarmer. :lol:

    The Googlification of God!
  • Kalam Arguments and Causal Principles
    I would disagree here on the science of the big bang. Quantum gravity and emergent space time could easily mean that time can apply in a slightly different sense before the big bang and mean that the big bang initial state had a cause. I don't think any cosmologists today hold to a naive view of the big bang singularity anymore, most opt for emergent spacetime from quantum states at a more fundemantal levels, emergent universe models based on the asymptotic state models or cyclic universe. — Ghost Light

    Beyond my ken I'm afraid. Thanks though! G'day!
  • Meat Plant Paradox!
    Eating a pig is atrocious. — Shawn

    And?

    I wouldn't say it's tit-for-tat. Humans have the capacity to reason about their diet. Plants do not. Nor animals. — emancipate

    Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large.

    I miss bacon though. Lots of bacon. — 180 Proof

    And?

    Well, lefties always insists on "equality" so .... — Apollodorus

    Marx & Engels (leftists) were right-handed. Go figure!

    But I'm not entirely sure about the pain-based argument for veganism. Do eggs experience pain when eaten by humans? — Apollodorus

    Thanks for pointing that out but then if it isn't about pain then what is it about? An egg is very similar, too similar in my opinion, to plants for Veganism to make sense. My logic would be that if you can't eat eggs, you can't eat plants too. Interesting!

    plant cultivation like soy beans can be detrimental for the environment: — Apollodorus

    That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame.
  • Kalam Arguments and Causal Principles
    CP = Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence). — Ghost Light

    big bang cosmology — Wayfarer

    The best science done in the last 100 years indicate that the universe came into existence around 14 billion years ago - that beginning derisively labeled The Big Bang but the theory that goes with that name is now more or less the official stand of cosmologists.

    As per the big bang model, we have a singularity (infinite mass & 0 volume) at time zero. There's no before this time as the infinite gravity of the singularity would mean that time would stop flowing which simply means there was no time; time, after all must flow to exist, right? ( :chin: ). Since there was no time before the big bang, causality breaks down since the standard definition of a cause includes that it temporally precede the effect, here the big bang singularity. The big bang singularity couldn't be caused for this reason.

    That's my best shot at answering the OP's question.

    Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? — Wayfarer

    Yep! :up: The rationale being, to my reckoning, knowledge of how stuff works and using that to one's advantage. Scientists, those who have a media presence that is, make a big deal out of how science has spawned a vast array of very useful objects, microscopes to telscopes.
  • Are we alone? The Fermi Paradox...
    Matter is not a substance it is a mathematical concept. — EnPassant

    Bingo! Matter is anything that has mass and has volume; both mass and volume are mathematically defined.
  • What can replace God??
    Education system — dimosthenis9

    Creation & Evolution In Public Education

    The difficulty, as I see it, is if religion is presented as an alrernative to science. It can't be helped since both seem to make claims in same areas like how animals and humans came into existence and let's not forget to mention their pronouncements on how old the earth is. This probably just the tip of the iceberg.

    I'm not sure but a practical workaround for this vexing issue of religion vs science in the educational system could be to introduce an entirely new, much needed and till date neglected, subject - ethics. Creationism could be taught as part of Christian, Judean, andMoslem ethics; it does appear to be necessary for the morality of these religions to make sense. The ethics curriculum however would be A1 if other ethical systems like Buddhism, utilitarianism and deontology are included.

    Creationism would be taught and it wouldn't be at loggerheads with science. Win-win! :chin:
  • An answer to The Problem of Evil
    I'm rather intrigued, puzzled, and wonderstruck by how evil and justice seem to be mirror images. Suppose I, god forbid, torture and kill someone. Justice, the ancient kind, the eye for an eye strain, would require me to be also tortured and killed in, preferably, the exact same way . Torture & Kill = Evil = Justice.

    :chin: Hmmm.

    A nexus, it looks like, between Satan and Justitia. An identity crisis! Are you, Algea, now here before me, inflicting such pain upon me that I now have become a paradox in flesh, life willingly and eagerly welcomes its nemesis, the Grim Reaper, sent to me by Satan or Justitia? Pray tell.
  • Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)
    Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)

    No.

    Never.

    Next subject, please.     — ssu

    :clap: :fire:
  • Conceiving Of Death.
    ↪180 Proof
    The artist, by nature, pushes the boundaries of the possible using faer favorite tool, the imagination.

    All the impossible objects that appear in this pair of videos aren't actual i.e. they are, in Roger Penrose's own words, "illusions". Nevertheless, kudos to Penrose and artists, M. C. Escher being one, for letting us a take a peek into the world of the impossible through their work. It's about perspective is what I gathered from the videos.

    I want to run something by you though. Did you notice that the impossible objects e.g. the weird Penrose triangle and the ascending-descending staircase (the way up is also the way down :chin: ) can be drawn in 2D but are impossible to construct in 3D? What does that mean? Taking away a dimension, to my reckoning, removes a restriction and that's why a 2D flat plane can hold an impossible 3D object. Paradox that, no? Most people's intuitions would tell them that increasing the number of dimensions of space should translate into more objects being possible, the added dimension providing an extra degree of freedom.

    Thanks a ton for the videos. G'day!

    P. S. How might I use the same technique as Roger Penrose (perspective) to conceive of Thanatos?
  • Conceiving Of Death.
    You just used "impossibilities" and "contradictions" in a sentence. Thus, Fool, they're conceived. — 180 Proof

    :chin: You're right but not completely. The words "impossible" and "contradiction" are different from the words "possible" and "noncontradiction."

    When I think about possible and noncontradiction, I can imagine them in my mind e.g. an eagle soaring in the sky (possible) and a pig rolling in the mud while a goat bleats nearby (noncontradiction).

    Yet, when I mull over impossibilities and contradictions, I can't imagine them. A square circle (impossible, can't imagine). A ball that's both all white and not all white (contradiction, can't imagine).
  • Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)
    Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
    prior to that they were called natural philosophers.     — Rxspence

    Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of materialism. — Some Guy

    Science makes no bones about what it's about - study of matter & energy within a mathematical framework as far as possible and physics is its poster child.

    But then,

    Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Bertrand Russell

    This thread is an all-important one because it reveals what's a startling truth as far as I'm concerned which is something as simple and as innocuous as a name change can make such a huge difference - science commands more respect and is treated as a real subject compared to philosophy which has now been relegated to just something a university needs to complete the set so to speak.

    Stage Name

    A performer will often take a stage name because their real name is considered unattractive, dull, or unintentionally amusing; projects an undesired image; is difficult to pronounce or spell; or is already being used by another notable individual, including names that are not exactly the same but still too similar. — Wikipedia
  • Conceiving Of Death.
    Update For Those Interested

    Assuredly there are ways of conceiving death, many have offered their own methods and I'm grateful.

    Nevertheless, the mind fails to conceive death proper.

    What else can the mind not conceive of?

    Answer: Impossibilities like square circles and the like, contradictions to be precise.

    So, is death impossible? Are we immortal?

    @Wayfarer :point: Zen koans as meditations on death.
  • What is Information?
    Matter & Energy. All that's needed OR All there is?
    — TheMadFool

    The mechanical brain does not secrete thought "as the liver does bile," as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.
    — Norbert Wiener

    That is from his book, Cybernetics, and is often quoted.

    we have lost focus (since quite a while ago!) and deviated from the topic, which is about "information", not "dualism"!
    — Alkis Piskas

    The duality of signs and substance is basic to this question. The OP wanted to say that 'everything is information', but I'm arguing that is so broad a definition as to be meaningless. I introduced the paper 'What is information?' because it discusses the role of information in the formation and propogation of organic life. So it does not propose that 'everything is information', although this keeps getting lost in the debate. It says that there's a fundamental distinction between 'the chemical paradigm' (which is reductionist materialism) and 'the information paradigm' (which says that there's an ontological distinction between mineral and organic.)     — Wayfarer

    Resonates with me, this idea of mind being information and that information is neither matter nor energy.

    A very simple proof, in my humble opinion, that information isn't physical is that we can use the same matter-energy pattern to encode different information. For example, in on instance I could stipulate that a tap means yes and tap-tap means no and in another instance, tap could mean good and tap-tap could mean bad. The information has changed but the matter-energy carrying that information hasn't - impossible if information were physical. Does my argument make sense?
  • The Computer Analogy - Minds/Memes/Apps/Malware
    Maybe yours is broken, or they never let you use it. :lol: — Sir2u

    You might've hit the nail on the head there. However, my question was, if it's not too much trouble or too close for comfort, about your problem solving app. I'm sure you could give a rough sketch of how you deal with the issues you face without giving away critical trade secrets if that's what you're worried about.

    Defective Serial Attention Blocker. This would be a great tool to add to your system. It blocks the Serial Attention syndrome caused by software such as farcebook and twatter. Defective Serial Attention, commonly know as "I can't fucking live without my mobile" addiction, has symptoms such as anti-socialness, apathy, and the dire "where is the goddamned outlet" effect that has people running around rooms bent over looking at the wall at knee level.

    As for the worms, try a gardeners shop.     — Sir2u

    You seem well-read on the psychology of social media and its accomplice, addictive personality. Don't mean to pry but how are you holding up against the constant bombardment of ideas, memes, beliefs, etc. the internet has made possible and that too at scales never before seen?

    In short, do you see yourself as a normal person with a brain running only good software, well-protected by the best antivirus program available or are you infected, like I seem to be, and don't know it yet?
  • The Computer Analogy - Minds/Memes/Apps/Malware
    Problem solving, built in software that is activated at birth.

    Species continuity, activated at adolescence.     — Sir2u

    :up:

    Problem solving app. Either I don't have one or it's outdated. I never seem able to solve problems. What's yours like? Can I have a look at your? What features does it have? How much is it? What's its track record like? Etc.

    Species continuity, activated at adolescence. — Sir2u

    Yes, it did come online many suns ago and I believe, given the right conditions, it still performs well enough.

    My concern is mainly, malware (viruses/worms/etc.) and how to protect my mind from them. Any anti-malware software you're familiar with that does it job well?
  • Who believes in the Flat Earth theory?
    feeling of control and freedom, and continuous physical flow. — jgill

    :rofl:

    As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
    They kill us for their sport.     — Gloucester (King Lear)

    Perhaps there are others here who have engaged in activities where "negating one's life . . ." They might add an interesting dimension to this discussion. — jgill

    Yes, death is interesting but dying, I don't know.
  • Coronavirus
    The Philosophy Of Covid-19

    All here seem acquainted enough with viruses and how they work. Nothing more than the basics is required for what I have to say.

    A book is, all said and done, a message and when the message is/feels good, we like to copy the message/book. In short, the message/book has to have some value in order that we might want to make copies of it.

    Now, the Covid-19, like all other viruses, is a book that contains the message COPY ME! - that's all there is in the Covid-19 book. At first, we're deeply puzzled by this because there's nothing about the Covid-19 book that moves us, inspires us, to make copies of it. It just says, COPY ME!.

    Here's where it gets interesting. Remember what I said in the 2nd paragraph about a book needing some value so that we feel like making copies of it. It turns out that whatever value we might think a book has ultimately boils down to how it ensures copying is enhanced/successful. Good books are copied but good books are good because they boost copying.

    In other words, the Covid-19 virus is the last word on life - COPY ME!. That's life! The rest is all bullshit!
  • If God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... Really?
    ↪baker


    @jorndoe Jorndoe Trilemma

    1. Q knows X
    2. Q doesn't like X
    3. Q can prevent X

    Ergo,

    4. Not X

    But,

    5. X

    Ergo,

    6. Q doesn't know X OR Q likes X OR Q can't prevent X

    For us, this means:

    7. God knows there's evil (Ominscient)
    8. God doesn't like evil (Omnibenevolent)
    9. God can prevent evil (Omniptent)

    Ergo,

    10. Evil shouldn't exist

    But,

    11. Evil exists

    Ergo,

    12. God is not omniscient OR God is not omnibenevolent OR God is not omnipotent.

    The Jorndoe Trilemma is our good ol' Epicurean paradox but with a Star Trek, futuristic, twist.

    As will be obvious to you, the existence of evil doesn't imply god isn't omnibenevolent. It's possible that God's either not omnipotent or not omniscient or both.

    That basically means God could be the quintessential child: good at heart but hopelessly naive and utterly powerless ( :sad:). Jesus was precisely that despite his 30 or so years: a good person who didn't have the slightest inkling of how devious people could be and, last but not the least, he was weakness personified, mercilessly tortured and then to add insult to injury, crucified till life itself jubilantly embraced death!
  • Zhuangtsu's Insight on Death: Some more Translations
    In case you haven't found it, here's a website with many translations of the Tao Te Ching along with some other documents:

    https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html     — T Clark

    Many thanks!
  • What can replace God??
    Fake answers? Lie? Yes I agree. But a necessary lie for humanity! — dimosthenis9

    Gennaion Pseudos

  • What can replace God??
    As Freddy Z says
    Man would rather will nothingness than not will.
    — The Genealogy of Morals III. 28
    NB: Science manifests as an intergenerational community of (dialectical, abductive, re)searchers which provides fallibilistic, testable, approximations and not "answers". (e.g. Dark Energy is not "the answer" any more than is quantum entanglement or natural selection.)     — 180 Proof

    Basically, Something Is Better Than Nothing!
  • Argumentum Ad Aetatem
    This should be right up your alley OP.

    If I've been reading authentic translations of the Mahabharata, there's this cute sub-plot in it where Draupadi, the queen, is with child. The father, Arjuna, a great warrior, perhaps impatiently, begins teaching his son, just a fetus then, battle field strategy. Just as he's about to impart a crucial piece of information on battle formations (Chakravyu or something like that), Draupadi falls asleep, so does the as yet unborn son. The son, Abhimanyu's his name if memory serves, is born but he has no knowledge of the Chakravyu formation.

    Later, Abhimanyu becomes a great warrior. He takes part in a war but is slain in the battle field. How? Chakravyu!!!

    Argumentum Ad Aetatem!
  • What can replace God??
    "God" (The empty name!) is a greater mystery used to explain the mystery of existence; of course, a mystery begs rather than answers a question and therefore does not explain anything. Woo of the gaps. Cosmic lollilop. Even an anti-anxiety placebo. Anything but an explanation. — 180 Proof

    Question: Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?

    Accepted answer: Dark Energy

    Real answer: We don't know

    I suppose we're so desperate for answers that an empty word is enthusiastically accepted than no answer.

    I can see where you're coming from.
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    Good "swerve" :wink: — Fine Doubter
    :meh:
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    Chance could be working through "god" - whether a necessary OR a contingent "god". — Fine Doubter

    Yes, that's why we can't tell the difference between chance and God.

    Rest of your post, irrelevant! Good vibes though!
  • What is Information?
    Cartesian dualism is only one form of dualism. It’s quite different to hylomorphic (matter-form) dualism. And there are others. — Wayfarer

    Matter &Energy. All that's needed OR All there is?

    I had no need for that hypothesis. — Pierre-Simon Laplace

    when being asked by Napoleon, no less, where, in his scientific theory, God fit in.
  • The Future
    Let's delimit the boundary of futorology between harming and curing. Everything else should fall in between.

    The past.
    We harmed each other with swords, flails, spears, axes, etc.

    We cured each other with incantations, charms, herbs, etc.

    The present.
    We're harming each other with guns, tanks, missiles, etc.

    We're curing each other with pills, jabs, etc.

    The future.
    We'll be harming each other with [exotic weapons]

    We'll be curing each other with [exotic medicine]

    The future will be the same (what we do will remain same) and yet not the same (what we use to do what we do will change).







  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    :smile:
  • Who believes in the Flat Earth theory?
    It's more complicated than you might think — jgill

    That was my point exactly. Extreme sports is defined by the level of risk to life and limb. If you ask me, they're at the leading edge of technology because many of the equipment used in extreme sports have to hold up in very unforgiving environments and that's not a 100% deal, hence the high mortality rates in this area.

    Why would someone risk his life just to experience a, usually, brief period of excitement - how long does a skydiver take to land back on earth?

    Many possible reasons of course but one that interests me is it amounts to negating one's life and survival instinct which is, in a way, rejecting your sense of self-awareness.



    Zombies literally throwing themselves off what looks like 600 feet wall!
  • What can replace God??
    The fact that this has been presented thus by apologetists hasn't helped anyone's morals. The bad effects of ambition to apologetism strengthen my argument that Dimosthenes9 should go the logic route. — Fine Doubter

    I see the word "logic". It's all good here!
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    :grin:
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    :up: I learned there are many reasons why someone grins - grin and bear it!
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    Then you conclude that God and Chance are the same thing. But they are not. They are not (as you put it) ontically identical. 'Ontic identity' is when two things actually are the same. — Cuthbert

    Then you conclude that God and Chance are the same thing. But they are not. They are not (as you put it) ontically identical. 'Ontic identity' is when two things actually are the same. — Cuthbert

    Yes, focus on what you know and not on what you can know and it should be clear to you.
  • What can replace God??
    Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? The short answer: Chance.
    — TheMadFool
    No. There is not any evidence that 'something & not-something' (i.e. atoms & void) were "created"; therefore, there's is not a "creator" or cause of 'something & not-something'. Best evidence: 'something & not-something' is just the brute fact. "Chance" merely describes the contingent interplay, or transformations, of 'something into not-something into something-else' ad infinitum and is, therefore, a derivative effect and not a cause of (chance) itself.     — 180 Proof

    The issue of evidence that something (the universe) was created is an all-important one for it has bearing on the question of what kinds of explanations are plausible for the existence of the universe.

    However, for the moment, disconnect the believability of an explanation from explanation itself and God, as an explanation, even though scoring low on the believability scale, comes into its own so to speak.

    As for your interpretation of Chance vis-à-vis the existence of the universe, if, as you say, chance is not a cause, then atheists haven't been able to refute the god hypothesis that's offered as an explanation for why there is a universe at all. I probably misread you but the ball is in your court.
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    Take a walk outside the philosophy studio for a minute. — Cuthbert

    Good advice! I'll keep that in mind.

    I am not the same as my brother. Now go back inside. Whatever account of identity we come up with it has to be consistent with that. If we come up with a meaning for 'the same as' in which I'm the same as my brother, we've gone obviously wrong. And not going obviously wrong can often be as good as it gets in philosophy. Sometimes even that it out of reach. — Cuthbert

    You fail to see the point. Perhaps you've read detective stories, true/fiction I don't care. What happens? A crime is committed. The detective then draws up a list of suspects. Given the evidence, logic dictates, it could be anyone on that list. In other words, given the crime, given the knowns, all people on that list are indistinguishable from each other - they're all identical insofar as the crime is concerned.

    I just realized that we're both talking about different things - your point is about, my best guess, ontic identity (you and your brother are definitely not identical) but I'm interested in epistemic identity (with the broken window alone, I can't know whether it was you or your brother - the two of you are identical).
  • Zhuangtsu's Insight on Death: Some more Translations
    This is a tricky paradox - why do all living minds tend to fear death while empirically it's a necessity? — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

    If X's essence is Y, it must resist not-Y. Life's essence is living, it must, therefore, resist (fear) not-living (thanatos/death). A lot's going on between, for X, Y and not-Y e.g. X's losing what it is to be X viz. Y. There maybe many examples that illustrate this point but I remember a movie, sorry I can't recall its name, in which a top athlete becomes paralyzed - an athlete resists (fears) losing faer essence (running).
  • The Computer Analogy - Minds/Memes/Apps/Malware
    Your brain brings a complete software packet — Sir2u

    Details? Names? Purpose?

    antismoking — Nils Loc

    On target! I'm a chimney!

    antiphilosophy — Nils Loc

    What's that?
  • Zhuangtsu's Insight on Death: Some more Translations
    ↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG


    I don't want to live on in my work. I want to live on in my apartment. — Woody Allen
  • God Does Not Play Dice!
    To my knowledge, the question of whether the Universe was ordered was never put to the Buddha. It was not one of questions he declined to answer, because he wasn't asked it. — Wayfarer

    So simple and yet so profound. I feel sages like the Buddha and the like are what in sci-fi are known as super-advanced AI. No sooner than they're discovered/invented, we start off by asking questions to them. Quite naturally; we are, after all, looking for answers. Rather unfortunate that no one had the sense to ask the Buddha that question. His answer would've been either true or interesting! I don't see how we could lose given that.

    But really I think it's a specious comparison, I don't think it's a scientific principle in the modern sense. — Wayfarer

    For better or worse, probably the latter, discerning fine distinctions, so important to life and philosophy, isn't my strong suit. Good point!

    exotic multiverse — George Ellis, Does the Multiverse Exist? Scientific American Aug 2011

    If memory serves, it was you who said, some time ago, that the multiverse is a bad hypothesis. I'm inclined to agree - nobody in faer right mind would buy a lottery. Hmmmm :chin:
Home » TheMadFool