Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Infinity and Kalam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stoic,


    First, I don't recall Euclid's maxim being written in stone.
    Second, the modification of Euclid's maxim under discussion effectively restricts it to finite sets
    That it’s not written in stone wasn’t my point. I’m doing two things here. I’m doing aporia and basing that aporia off of a history of justification. Infinite set-theorists restrict EM to finite sets in their debate with the intuitionists and the constructablists. This is a purely mathematical debate. Every single time the question of metaphysical instantiability comes up, naive mathematicians and oblivious metaphysicians extend the justification in that debate to a completely different debate, in a completely different context, where rules against inverse operations on existing objects are no longer forbidden. So, there’s a completely different enumerative game going on here, with the lifting of rules that no longer apply, where the absurdities are no longer checked and balanced, but can be nipped in the bud by restricting the justification to the debate between the mathematicians where it belongs, and sticking to the extremely plausible EM for any instiantiable collection, where the Principle of Correspondence makes sense, with the negligible cost of keeping actually infinite collections from being a thing in reality. This aporetic strategy seems to go through in flying colors for me.

    Set theory allows you to add elements to a set, or remove elements from a set. This is true even of infinite sets.
    Of course, you can do this with finite sets. But I don’t know where you’re getting this for infinite sets. I took Set Theory in Graduate School and inverse operations like subtraction and division are explicitly prohibited because they’re ill-defined. There has to be this strange, unnatural distinction between size and cardinality, but size ends up not being a quantitative property. It’s a concept describing the characteristics of the elements in a set; it can’t quantitatively enumerate those elements without introducing cardinality again. But once cardinality is brought back in, we’re back to being ill-defined. But again, we’re within the mathematical realm. I can’t use any of the justification mathematicians use in their debates with the intuitionists to justify how it’s metaphysically possible for there to be a one-to-one correspondence between the set of natural numbers and instantiated objects in the world, spatio-temporal or not. These are completely different domains.

    It seems to me that one could argue in the same way that the number zero doesn't exist. Mathematics only excludes division by zero because you can get contradictory answers.
    I think I follow. Though it’s hard to know what it would look like for zero to exist. It’s easy to imagine an actually infinite number of things existing and then doing to the forbidden operations.

    When you say that there can only be one kind of stuff constituting an infinite magnitude, what kind of stuff are you talking about? I don't think "distance" counts as "stuff".
    No, that’s not what I meant by ‘there can be only one kind of stuff’. I didn’t mean it’s impossible for there to be other kinds of stuff; I meant that it’s possible that what we’re talking about is one kind of stuff. For example, one could imagine an infinitely extended ‘gunk’, as the mereologists talk about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunk_(...ogy%2C%20an%20 area%20of,of%20gunk%20is%20itself%20gunk.)

    The gravitational waves that have been detected have been attributed to the collisions of black holes and/or neutron stars, which are distinct from the type of gravity waves that would have been caused by inflation. I don't think there is anything in Steinhardt and Turok's model that would rule out the gravitational waves that have been detected so far.
    I know that Advanced LIGO detected the gravitational waves from the merging of two orbiting black holes, and I also know that the gravitational waves caused by inflation have yet to be detected. But what I meant to emphasize is that the last prediction made by GTR has come true. Gravitational waves exist. It’s not the case that the eventual discovery of the gravitational waves from inflation will be of a different type. Gravitational waves are gravitational waves. The prediction that inflationary cosmology is the way to go is pretty much in the bag. The only barrier in the way is advancements in the technology of LIGO.

    “Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute, said the technology would undoubtedly improve. If it can reach a sensitivity 100,000 times better than Advanced LIGO has already demonstrated, he said, then it would be possible to hear the booming of gravitational waves from the birth of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago” (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle28713410/).
    The prediction is backed by a fully confirmed GTR. Experimentally confirming it is the Holy Grail, but it’s pretty much over at this point. Everyone is just waiting on the technology. A cosmological application of GTR makes the population of inflation inevitable, and so the detection of the so-called ‘primordial’ gravitational waves are inevitable. This expectation has nothing to do with the mistake made by Antarctic BICEP2 that registered cosmic dust rather than waves. That mistake was one of experimental confirmation. The prediction is still in the bag at this point.

    “Based on their analysis, the scientists think that both current and future planned gravitational wave detectors will be able to detect the frequencies of gravitational waves emitted by shocks. These frequencies correspond to emission times of around 10-4 to 10-30 seconds after the big bang” (https://phys.org/news/2016-10-early-universe-today.html.)
    I realize that Steinhardt cautions that

    “even if we detect primordial gravitational waves, we should not rush to the conclusion that they are due to inflation. Better theories may come along that avoid the pitfalls of inflation and that nevertheless predict gravitational waves” (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lped-conceive/),
    . . . but that’s more of a casual hope or a truism than anything else. Anything ‘may’ happen, but it probably won’t, as admitted by both Turok and Steinhardt. It would be hard to salvage their model (or some comparable model without inflation) without introducing ad hoc features to ‘save the phenomena’, so to speak. This and the fact that physicists are already very aware of where this is going as evidenced by folks like Sébastien Galtier, Jason Laurie, and Sergey V. Nazarenko (file:///Users/matthewdamore/Downloads/universe-06-00098%20(1).pdf) In here (https://inspirehep.net/literature/1672978), you also have Peter Adshead(Illinois U., Urbana), John T. Giblin(Kenyon Coll. and Case Western Reserve U., CERCA), Zachary J. Weiner(Illinois U., Urbana), who admit that,

    “. . . the frequencies of the generated gravitational waves lie far from those to which LIGO is sensitive. However, the amplitude of this signal will remain (relatively6) invariant when changing m, while the emitted frequencies are proportional to this scale [14]. For this reason, these preheating dynamics after low- scale inflation could in principle be detected by LIGO. Advanced LIGO’s peak sensitivity is on the order of Ωgw,(f)h2 ∼ 10−10, which is several orders of magnitude lower than that the amplitude produced by the simulations which achieve complete reheating. aLIGO’s peak sensitivity lies around f ∼ 50 Hz, which would probe inflationary scales ∼106 GeV. Note that the subsequent expansion history of the Universe also affects the gravitational-wave transfer function; we assume the Universe is radiation dominated after emission until matter-radiation equality. Since preheating into gauge fields naturally leads into radiation domination after inflation, this approximation is well-justified.”
    The predictions from physicists are ubiquitous and pretty confident: (e.g. https://inspirehep.net/literature/1735811)

    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

      Clipped out references of 'reputable scientists'. So, when I get those ones that talk about 'actual infinities', you'll say the same thing.

      You really are a deluded dunderhead.

      Um, not a Newtonian. And, dude, your knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, along with your knowledge about anything, is virtually non-existent. I seriously wouldn't go to you as a source on anything ever. You are a thick, dumb moron, a poster-child for the Dunning-Kreuger effect. I literally have never talked to anyone like you. I've talked to thousands of people over the years with people I disagree with. You literally are at the top of the list for the stupidest person I've ever talked to. No one comes close.
      This ia all 'arguing from ignorance' and a torallack of knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. Like seer your living in a Newtonian mechanical world out of touch with contemporary science. You simply have demonstrated that whether our physical existence has a beginning or not is unknown. Yes, itis at present not falsifiable whether our physical existence has a beginning or not, but the challenge to both you and seer remains:

      Again . . . You have failed to present a reference to one reputable scientist that our physical existence is 'absolutely infinite.' I will add that please cite any reputable scientist argues that 'actual infinities' are relevant to the question that our universe cannot be past infinite.'

      Still waiting . . .

      Failure to respond par excellence . . .
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
        That it’s not written in stone wasn’t my point. I’m doing two things here. I’m doing aporia and basing that aporia off of a history of justification. Infinite set-theorists restrict EM to finite sets in their debate with the intuitionists and the constructablists. This is a purely mathematical debate. Every single time the question of metaphysical instantiability comes up, naive mathematicians and oblivious metaphysicians extend the justification in that debate to a completely different debate, in a completely different context, where rules against inverse operations on existing objects are no longer forbidden. So, there’s a completely different enumerative game going on here, with the lifting of rules that no longer apply, where the absurdities are no longer checked and balanced, but can be nipped in the bud by restricting the justification to the debate between the mathematicians where it belongs, and sticking to the extremely plausible EM for any instiantiable collection, where the Principle of Correspondence makes sense, with the negligible cost of keeping actually infinite collections from being a thing in reality. This aporetic strategy seems to go through in flying colors for me.
        The aporetic strategy may work for you, but it doesn't really do anything for me.

        Of course, you can do this with finite sets. But I don’t know where you’re getting this for infinite sets. I took Set Theory in Graduate School and inverse operations like subtraction and division are explicitly prohibited because they’re ill-defined. There has to be this strange, unnatural distinction between size and cardinality, but size ends up not being a quantitative property. It’s a concept describing the characteristics of the elements in a set; it can’t quantitatively enumerate those elements without introducing cardinality again. But once cardinality is brought back in, we’re back to being ill-defined. But again, we’re within the mathematical realm. I can’t use any of the justification mathematicians use in their debates with the intuitionists to justify how it’s metaphysically possible for there to be a one-to-one correspondence between the set of natural numbers and instantiated objects in the world, spatio-temporal or not. These are completely different domains.
        You seem to be confusing adding and removing elements from infinite sets with adding and subtracting the sizes of infinite sets.

        If you took set theory, then you are familiar with the operations on sets, such as union, intersection, complement, and difference. These operations can be applied to infinite sets as well, and they can be used to add and remove elements from sets, including infinite sets.

        I think I follow. Though it’s hard to know what it would look like for zero to exist. It’s easy to imagine an actually infinite number of things existing and then doing to the forbidden operations.

        No, that’s not what I meant by ‘there can be only one kind of stuff’. I didn’t mean it’s impossible for there to be other kinds of stuff; I meant that it’s possible that what we’re talking about is one kind of stuff. For example, one could imagine an infinitely extended ‘gunk’, as the mereologists talk about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunk_(...ogy%2C%20an%20 area%20of,of%20gunk%20is%20itself%20gunk.)

        I know that Advanced LIGO detected the gravitational waves from the merging of two orbiting black holes, and I also know that the gravitational waves caused by inflation have yet to be detected. But what I meant to emphasize is that the last prediction made by GTR has come true. Gravitational waves exist. It’s not the case that the eventual discovery of the gravitational waves from inflation will be of a different type. Gravitational waves are gravitational waves. The prediction that inflationary cosmology is the way to go is pretty much in the bag. The only barrier in the way is advancements in the technology of LIGO.
        Okay. I must have missed where inflation is guaranteed by GTR.

        The prediction is backed by a fully confirmed GTR. Experimentally confirming it is the Holy Grail, but it’s pretty much over at this point. Everyone is just waiting on the technology. A cosmological application of GTR makes the population of inflation inevitable, and so the detection of the so-called ‘primordial’ gravitational waves are inevitable. This expectation has nothing to do with the mistake made by Antarctic BICEP2 that registered cosmic dust rather than waves. That mistake was one of experimental confirmation. The prediction is still in the bag at this point.

        I realize that Steinhardt cautions that

        . . . but that’s more of a casual hope or a truism than anything else. Anything ‘may’ happen, but it probably won’t, as admitted by both Turok and Steinhardt. It would be hard to salvage their model (or some comparable model without inflation) without introducing ad hoc features to ‘save the phenomena’, so to speak. This and the fact that physicists are already very aware of where this is going as evidenced by folks like Sébastien Galtier, Jason Laurie, and Sergey V. Nazarenko (file:///Users/matthewdamore/Downloads/universe-06-00098%20(1).pdf) In here (https://inspirehep.net/literature/1672978), you also have Peter Adshead(Illinois U., Urbana), John T. Giblin(Kenyon Coll. and Case Western Reserve U., CERCA), Zachary J. Weiner(Illinois U., Urbana), who admit that,

        The predictions from physicists are ubiquitous and pretty confident: (e.g. https://inspirehep.net/literature/1735811)
        I get the impression that Steinhardt is not on board with those predictions.

        And there is still no substitute for experimental results.

        Comment


        • The main point I am making is at present, and likely will never be falsified, as ro whether our physical existence is finite or infinite. There is a diversity of tentative conclusions reached by different scientists concerning the beginnings and the infinitude of our physical existence. These questions remain unresolved. I only propose that our physical existence is potentially infinite as the boundless infinite timeless (without three dimension space/time) Quantum World.

          The Kalam apologetic argument is ancient and too simplistic, and does not reflect the contemporary knowledge of cosmology and math.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-12-2021, 11:06 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The Kalam apologetic argument is ancient and too simplistic, and does not reflect the contemporary knowledge of cosmology and math.
            Nope, it is still valid. IF something begins to exist it has a cause. The only other option is to assert that something can begin to exist without a cause. I see no evidence that that is possible.

            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post

              Nope, it is still valid. IF something begins to exist it has a cause. The only other option is to assert that something can begin to exist without a cause. I see no evidence that that is possible.
              Ancient simplistic apologetic arguments aside .. .

              By the present objective verifiable evidence the cause of our universe and our physical existence is natural.

              From previous reference: https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe

              "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause." - Vilenkin

              To deny the infinite duration of time,” asserted the Walter Nernst, “would be to betray the very foundations of science.”
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                Ancient simplistic apologetic arguments aside .. .

                By the present objective verifiable evidence the cause of our universe and our physical existence is natural.

                From previous reference: https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe

                "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause." - Vilenkin

                To deny the infinite duration of time,” asserted the Walter Nernst, “would be to betray the very foundations of science.”
                So nothing cause the universe? How does that happen? And what is the evidence that that actually happened? Well not according to Vilenkin, from your link:

                The theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. It is unclear how, or whether, it can be tested observationally. It is nonetheless the first attempt to formulate the problem of cosmic origin and to address it in a quantitative way.

                "So Shuny do you believe that the universe can be created without a cause, which means it is created from literally nothing?"
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause." - Vilenkin
                  Doesn't that contradict what you said about your religion?


                  I am not sure why you cited this, but read again Yes the Baha'i perspective is our physical existence never began from 'pure nothingness,' which agrees with science.Our physical existence has no known beginning nor end. Our physical existence is an eternal Creation.


                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    The main point I am making is at present, and likely will never be falsified, as ro whether our physical existence is finite or infinite. There is a diversity of tentative conclusions reached by different scientists concerning the beginnings and the infinitude of our physical existence. These questions remain unresolved. I only propose that our physical existence is potentially infinite as the boundless infinite timeless (without three dimension space/time) Quantum World.

                    The Kalam apologetic argument is ancient and too simplistic, and does not reflect the contemporary knowledge of cosmology and math.
                    I agee that we probably won't ever know whether the universe is finite or infinite. Any time it appears to have a beginning, it will always be an open question of whether that was really the beginning, or whether there was something before that.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post

                      Doesn't that contradict what you said about your religion?
                      My argument in this thread is science and irrelevance of the Kalam apologetic argument. In our previous dialogues I have repeatedly stated this. From the objective verifiable evidence of science cannot justify the necessity a cause other than Natural Laws.. Science does not make the dogmatic statement that there is no cause other than Natural Laws. I do not try to justify my religion based on science, but do consider my beliefs to be in harmony with science.


                      I am not sure why you cited this, but read again Yes the Baha'i perspective is our physical existence never began from 'pure nothingness,' which agrees with science.Our physical existence has no known beginning nor end. Our physical existence is an eternal Creation.
                      I responded to you quoting the writings of the Baha'i Faith, and yes it reflects my belief of the harmony of science and religion, except science deals only with the nature of our physical existence and cannot be used to justify the existence of God or a cause other than Natural Law. ...
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        My argument in this thread is science and irrelevance of the Kalam apologetic argument. In our previous dialogues I have repeatedly stated this. From the objective verifiable evidence of science cannot justify the necessity a cause other than Natural Laws.. Science does not make the dogmatic statement that there is no cause other than Natural Laws. I do not try to justify my religion based on science, but do consider my beliefs to be in harmony with science.
                        That is not the the point of the first premise of Kalam. That if something began to exist it has a cause. There is no scientific evidence to counter that point. And of course you are trying to justify your religion with science (your harmony). That is why you will jump on any theory that suggests a past eternal universe or multiverse.



                        I responded to you quoting the writings of the Baha'i Faith, and yes it reflects my belief of the harmony of science and religion, except science deals only with the nature of our physical existence and cannot be used to justify the existence of God or a cause other than Natural Law. ...
                        But you are not in harmony with Vilenkin's quote that you used. Which is a universe coming into being without a cause - i.e. from literally nothing. Which BTW is creation ex nihilo.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment



                        • If the laws of quantum mechanics are prior to the universe, then it would require some eternal substrate on which these laws are stored...like a mind...or some conscious like aether. How else could information be stored?

                          That, is information in this sense...like Eternal Laws, etc. I know you can store "info" on computer chips and such...
                          Last edited by Machinist; 11-13-2021, 09:01 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            That is not the the point of the first premise of Kalam. That if something began to exist it has a cause.
                            That is the problem at hand the ancient Kalam argument is irrelevant and meaningless concerning whether our physical existence is finite or infinite, The argument as a whole reaches the conclusion that our physical existence must have a cuse, therefore God exists.


                            There is no scientific evidence to counter that point. And of course you are trying to justify your religion with science (your harmony). That is why you will jump on any theory that suggests a past eternal universe or multiverse.
                            It is not jumping on any theory either way. I disagree that ANY theory of our cosmology at present can be used to conclude that our physical existence is finite or infinite. I ONLY proposed that there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that an 'infinite' physical existence is possible both logical and possible.

                            But you are not in harmony with Vilenkin's quote that you used. Which is a universe coming into being without a cause - i.e. from literally nothing. Which BTW is creation ex nihilo.
                            Vilenkin's quote is the view from science, which I acknowledged. I never, and I mean never stated that this scientific view was in harmony with science. Actually as previously stated the issue of a cause outside Natural Laws is NOT in the realm of science and unknown from the scientific perspective, which can only deal with the objective verifiable evidence. The question of cause beyond this is a Theological/philosophical question.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post

                              So nothing cause the universe? How does that happen?
                              There can be only one honest answer to those questions, and that is; I don't know. You can speculate all you like, and as you can probably imagine, my preferred speculation would run along naturalistic lines. But, in the absence of any falsifiable evidentiary data, any speculation can only be a guess. Some guesses may be more plausible than others, but as things stand, a guess is what they are.

                              And what is the evidence that that actually happened?
                              If there was actual evidence of what actually happened, this discussion would be moot, and the question answered with a fully consistent scientific theory . Like the theories of general relativity and evolution by natural selection.

                              But if it's actual evidence you're demanding for a naturalistic beginning of the universe, perhaps you should consider offering some actual evidence for your own preferred guess. Maybe starting with, (and without special pleading - you know, all things began with a cause, except my preferred deity, which is infinite in all dimensions, including time) how your preferred creator entity was created.

                              When inventing a god, it is imperative to claim that it's; invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise - when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing - intelligent people are liable to become sceptical.
                              - Anonymous

                              When asked why Omniscient and Omnipotent God, chose to burn alive the children of two Middle Eastern cities, came the reply;
                              “His hands were tied.” - DaveTheApologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                                That is the problem at hand the ancient Kalam argument is irrelevant and meaningless concerning whether our physical existence is finite or infinite, The argument as a whole reaches the conclusion that our physical existence must have a cuse, therefore God exists.
                                I don't get your point - are you saying that this universe that began with a hot big bang 13 billion years ago did not have a cause? If it did, premise one met.


                                It is not jumping on any theory either way. I disagree that ANY theory of our cosmology at present can be used to conclude that our physical existence is finite or infinite. I ONLY proposed that there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that an 'infinite' physical existence is possible both logical and possible.
                                That is false, there is zero evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, and as Vilenkin and Guth showed it can not be.


                                Vilenkin's quote is the view from science, which I acknowledged. I never, and I mean never stated that this scientific view was in harmony with science. Actually as previously stated the issue of a cause outside Natural Laws is NOT in the realm of science and unknown from the scientific perspective, which can only deal with the objective verifiable evidence. The question of cause beyond this is a Theological/philosophical question.
                                Then why quote Vilenkin in the first place?

                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X