I just read the New Scientist article Quantum Rebel last night about
Shariar Afshar's work on the double slit experiment. Ingenious as the
experiment is, I really don't think it says anything about different
interpretations of QM. Indeed, the outcome of the experiment is just
what I'd expect from
The probability that Russell's message contained a virus was low (he uses
linux) but nonzero. So, I guess that's bad news for some of my copies in the
multiverse.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Jeanne Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Now in the article, Afshar claims to have measured which slit the
photon passed through and verified the existence of an interference
pattern. However, this is not the case - without the wires in
place to detect the presence of the interference pattern, photons
arriving
I remember discussing this with you a few months ago. I am still not
convinced though :-)
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Sunday, April 25, 2004 06:19 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Monday, April 26, 2004 03:00 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?
At 10:48 AM 4/25/04, Saibal Mitra wrote:
This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed
Even if there is only one World, there would still be a sort of Many Worlds
branching after each quantum observation, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010
Many worlds in one
Authors: Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin
Comments: 9 pages, 2 figures, comments and references added
This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on
this list a few
years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists
a measure over
the set of al universes, favoring simpler ones.
Also, note that there is no such thing as ''next possible''
states. Once you
consider the whole
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404045
Quantum mechanics without quantum logic
Authors: D.A. Slavnov
Comments: 24 pages, no figures, Latex
We describe a scheme of quantum mechanics in which the Hilbert space and
linear operators are only secondary structures of the theory. As primary
-similar
states can anyway) with the passage
of time (OR with lower probability in a shorter time.)
Maybe?
Eric
Saibal Mitra wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Request for a glossary
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms
Saibal Mitra wrote:
This means that the relative measure is completely fixed by the absolute
measure. Also
This means that the relative measure is completely fixed by the absolute
measure. Also the relative measure is no longer defined when probabilities
are not conserved (e.g. when the observer may not survive an experiment as
in quantum suicide). I don't see why you need a theory of consciousness.
Congratulations!
B.t.w., I don't like the doublespaced version on
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:16 AM
Subject: Occam's Razor now published
- Original Message -
From: Fred Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Peculiarities of our universe
One other scenario is that a civilization has indeed reached this
pervasive
state, but not in a form we'd
I don't think there are many intelligent beings per cubic Plank length in
our universe at all! In fact, string theorists don't know how to get to the
standard model from their favorite theory, yet they still believe in it.
Simple deterministic models could certainly explain our laws of physics, as
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: Peculiarities of our universe
There are a couple of peculiarities of our universe which it would be
nice if the All-Universe Hypothesis (AUH) could explain,
There are some problems with this as Eric has pointed out.
The best way to define identity, i.m.o., would be to say that a program is a
SAS having an identity. If that SAS experience the outcome of an experiment,
it's program will be changed by the mere fact it has acquired the memory of
the
Russell wrote:
The empirical problem with the ASSA is that under most reasonable
proposals for the absolute measure, observer moments corresponding to
younger people have higher measure than older people. Whilst the
reference class issue puts a lower bound on how old you would expect
to be,
consistent with ''normal'' physics.
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Sunday, November 02, 2003 05:45 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Quantum accident survivor
I disagree. You can only get
There have been many replies to this. I would say that you wouldn't expect
to survive such accidents.
Assume that we are sampled from a probability distribution over a set of
possible states. E.g. in eternal inflation theories all possible quantum
states the observable universe can be in are all
Leibniz, Information, Math and PhysicsAuthors: G. J.
Chaitin (IBM Research)Subj-class: History and
OverviewMSC-class: 68Q30
The information-theoretic point of view proposed by Leibniz in
1686 and developed by algorithmic information theory (AIT) suggests that
mathematics and physics
Bruno wrote:
I agree with you except that I don't see how the omniscient simulator
will
miss your small cross on the wall, because this will make some change
in your scanned brain, and He will take those changes into account.
So, giving the hypotheses, your if the creature is unaware of this
This sounds very strange to me. Arguably one could say that my brain is
simulating me (where I associate myself with a particular algorithm). I
would say that any physical process computing me has to have my
consciousness. So, if someone starts to simulate me, there is a 50%
probability that I
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Brett Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: woensdag 12 maart 2003 11:28
Onderwerp: Re: Parmenides' Principle
However, no where in the
multiverse is the charge on an electron 4 Coulombs. Somewhere in the
plentitude, however,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095
Determinism beneath Quantum Mechanics
Author: Gerard 't Hooft (Spinoza Institute, Utrecht University)
Comments: Conf. Proceedings, Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics, Philadelphia,
2002, 12 pages, 1 figure Postscript
Report-no: ITP-02/69; SPIN-2002/45
Contrary to
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131
astro-ph/0302131 [abs, ps(600), other] :
Title: Parallel Universes
Authors: Max Tegmark (Penn)
Comments: 18 pages, 8 figs. A less technical adaptation is scheduled for the
May 2003 issue of Scientific American. Version with full-resolution figs at
this http
Well, just perform this simple experiment to find out. See:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301229
Hall Finney: ''You might want to clarify what you mean by quantum suicide
working. What do you hope to accomplish via QS? What effect will it
have on your subjective perceptions?''
By ''quantum suicide working'' I mean that you could make the probability of
winning the lottery as close to
, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Actually, one doesn't have to dig very deep in the archive. This very
thread
is an example of an off topic irrelevant discussion. Irrelevant,
because
there are so few other postings that should not have appeared on this
list.
Perhaps instead of creating a seperate
Hal Finney wrote:
Maybe you could look at the list archive at
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/maillist.html
and say which posts from, say, December 30th and 31st you would reject.
(Or, if the list would be shorter, you could say which posts in that
period you would
I think that Newcomb's paradox does provide evidence for machine
consciousness, independent of implementation.
[A reminder. Newcomb's paradox: A highly superior being from another part
of the galaxy presents you with two boxes, one open and one closed. In the
open box there is a thousand-dollar
),
... or it would be equivalent with Everett (accepting that quantum
contextuality + realism implies the many-things).
Bruno
Original message by Saibal Mitra:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag 4 oktober 2002 18:13
Onderwerp: Re: Many Fermis Interpretation Paradox -- So why aren't they
here?
At 9:36 -0700 1/10/2002, Tim May wrote:
MWI looks,
Thenew edition of Siegel's textbook ``Fields´´ can be
downloaded from:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9912205
Saibal
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the
conclusion of the paper.
Saibal
Wei Dai wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dyson, L., Kleban, M. Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a
cosmological constant. Preprint
PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 23:46
Onderwerp: Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:28:28PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204256
Ordinary atom-mirror atom bound states: A new window on the mirror
world
Authors: R. Foot, S.
MitraComments: about 8 pages, couple of changes
Mirror symmetry is a plausible candidate for a fundamental
symmetry of particle interactions which can be
Exp(Pi*Sqrt(n)) PageThis table lists values of Exp(Pi*Sqrt(n)), for
some selected values of n up to 1000. Some of these values are very close to
integers. A prize will be awarded to anyone who can either convincingly
argue that this is coincidence, or who can explain why this is so in terms
Hal Finney wrote: ``Unfortunately it does not seem
likely that an explanation suitable for a college senior is available,
unless he is willing to educate himself for several months on higher
mathematics.´´
I suspect that Roy Williams Clickery included this condition so that he
always has an
The very act of predicting what you will choose is equivalent to generating
you virtually and observing what box you will choose. So, when you stand in
front of the two boxes, you don't know if you are in the real world or in
the virtual world. The causal argument is thus invalid.
The only way
Hello Stephen,
Here are the references to 't Hooft's papers. Ref. 3 is written for
non-specialists, and should be easy to follow.
Greetings,
Saibal
[1] Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084
[2] Determinism in Free Bosons
MWI is a fully deterministic theory, but it is not the
only deterministic theory consistent with QM.
I believe that 't Hooft's theory is more natural from the point of view that
universes are programs. It is hard for me to understand how you get
interference between ``nearby´´ universes or
Gordon wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know
that.
If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could
have
concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
elementary paricles don't
This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know that.
If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could have
concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to
Russell wrote:
I take consciousness to be that property essential for the operation
of the Anthropic Principle. The universe is the way it is because we
are here observing it as conscious beings.
The first problem this raises is why does the anthropic principle
work? - one can conceive
Maybe it isn't working but only seems to be working due to a white
rabbit.
- Origineel Bericht -
Van: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: Maandag, Mei 6, 2002 11:30 am
Onderwerp: Re: test
At 13:19 -0700 5/05/2002, Wei Dai wrote:
This is a test to make sure the Everything Mailing
- Original Message -
From: Brian Scurfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: RE: Holodeck guy tries to prove 'Bruno theory'
In this paper Olum defends the self-indicating assumption which says that
given the fact you exist you
Nick Bostrom's uses the self-sampling assumption without simultaneously
invoking the self-indicating assumption. That's wrong and leads
straightforward to nonsense.
E.g. the Doomsday argument is a closely related fallacy. This is explained
by Ken Olum:
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology,
I have made a homepage for Mirror Matter,
It can be found at http://people.zeelandnet.nl/smitra
It is still under construction, comments welcome.
Saibal Mitra
I don't understand this point.
Bill Jefferys wrote:
Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
things from a Bayesian POV, as I do.
Saibal Mitra
A new preprint on the mirror matter hypothesis by R. Foot and
T.L. Loon has appeared. My observation that cratering rates on the Moon
point to the presence of mirror asteroids in our solar system is also
included.
See:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203152
Abstract:
There are a number of
Robert Foot has written a book on mirror matter. It can be ordered or
downloaded from:
http://www.upublish.com/books/foot.htm
Saibal
Recently discovered documents detail the steps Nasa
and the Nixon administration would have taken had the Apollo XI astronauts Neil
Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin been unable to return from the moon.
The following is the full text of the unused speech, ominously entitled "In
the event
Hello Bruno,
I did follow a course on Hopf algebras, but that's already some time
ago. I will read the articles you mentioned, should be interesting!
B.t.w. Kreimer has also written some papers with David Broadhurst. He
has done some quite amazing work, see his homepage:
It has been conventional wisdom that the
fundamental laws of physics are not invariant under parity.Now, the
computational complexity of a model that lacks mirror symmetry is
muchlarger than a similar mirror symmetric
model.It would thus be very strange if Nature isindeed not invariant
High Energy Physics - Theory, abstracthep-th/0201092 From: Stephen Blaha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:57:12 GMT (634kb)
A Quantum Computer Foundation for the Standard Model and SuperString
Theories
Authors: Stephen
BlahaComments: 78 pages, PDF
We show the Standard Model and
Computer Science, abstractcs.LG/0201005 From: Paul Vitanyi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:44:10 GMT (11kb)
Sharpening Occam's Razor
Authors: Ming Li (Univ.
Waterloo), John Tromp
(CWI), Paul
Vitanyi (CWI and University of Amsterdam)Comments: LaTeX 10
pagesReport-no: CWI
Bruno wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Now there exists a class of universes, with a very low measure, in
which the laws of physics are such that I am guaranteed to win. The
probability that I find myself in such a universe will have increased
substantially after each experiment. After a few
back.
Saibal
John Mikes wrote:
OK, Saibal Mitra, you won. Are you happy
now? Can you ever go back?
John Mikes
Suppose that every week I subject myself to a suicide
experiment. I usea suicide machineto win that weeks lottery.
After a few years I will have won hundreds
that quantum suicide actually works (as Larry Niven
said
about the matter transmitter which destroys you at point A and creates a
perfect
copy at point B, I wouldn't ride in the damn thing).
Charles
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything [EMAIL PROTECTED
Russel wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Hal wrote:
One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater measure
than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of
universe
that we do
A proper calculation using Bayes' theorem is missing in the article. The
conclusion is false.
E.g. let's assume that (2) and (3) are false. So, we know with almost 100%
certainty that we are not living in a simulation, and we know with almost
100% certainty that a posthuman civilization is going
All arrangemets are equally likely, but the probability is, of course, zero.
So with probability one you don't get only zeros.
There is a theorem that says that any finite arbitrary configuration will
appear an infinite number of times in an infinite random sequence with
probability one.
Saibal
Hal Finney wrote:
Juergen Schmidhuber writes:
But there is no uniform prior over all programs!
Just like there is no uniform prior over the integers.
To see this, just try to write one down.
I think there is. Given a program of length l, the prior probability
is 2^(-l). (That is 2 to
Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a typical
American. You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to
behave. E.g. recounting of votes in Florida, pro life versus pro choice...
Unthinkable here in Europe!
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is
Bruno wrote:
Charles wrote:
(BTW, would I be right in thinking that, applying the SSA to a person who
finds himself to be 1 year old, the chances that he'll
live to be 80 is 1/80?)
This argument (against Leslie Bayesian Doomsday argument) has been
developped by Jean Paul Delahaye in the
? This
doesn't appear to be related to the problem of being required to
forget how old you if you are immortal in a physical human sense.
Cheers
Saibal Mitra wrote:
According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can
=
also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I
survive
without memory loss, other branches are not considered. This leads to the
paradox that you should experience yourself being infinitely old etc..
Saibal
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
In the case of a person
I see that according to you Hal Ruhl qualifies as a copy of Hal Finney.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: jamikes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zondag 9 september 2001 15:06
Onderwerp: Immortality
Hal Finney wrote:
Saibal writes:
According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can
also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I know for a
fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a
long time ago.
Right, but to make the
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
As I have written before, a person is just a computation being
implemented
somewhere. Suppose that the person has discovered that he suffers from a
terminal ilness and he dies
Jacques Mallah wrote:
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN).
I'm certainly not going to call it a theory. Doing so lends it an a
priori aura of legitimacy. Words mean things, as Newt Gingrich once said
in
one of his smarter
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb dropped on you, there's
Jacques Mallah wrote:
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jacques Mallah wrote:
`` I have repeated pointed out the obvious consequence that if that
were
true, then a typical observer would find himself to be much older than
the
apparent lifetime of his species would allow; the fact
Jacques Mallah wrote:
`` I have repeated pointed out the obvious consequence
that if that were true, then a typical observer would find himself to be
much older than the apparent lifetime of his species would allow; the fact
that you do not find yourself so old gives their hypothesis a
According to quantum theory there exists a finite probability that someone
will simulate me in a virtual environment using a computer. This means that
there is a finite probability that I could wake up in a virtual world with
different effective laws of physics. Of course, the real laws of
Questions 1) and 1a) have been answered in this article:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0008018
Saibal
Joel wrote:
Bruno and fellow Everythingers...
Sorry I've been disconnected for a while. I think Bruno's last message
has
really helped me to understand the Universal Dovetailer.
Try Foundation of Physics Letters!
Saibal
Russel wrote:
As many of you are aware, I have been attempting to publish Why
Occams Razor for about 18 months now. In September, it will have been
two years since I wrote the paper. I first tried Phys Rev - which
rejected it on editorial policy
Correction: the journal is called Foundations of
Physics.
Joel wrote:
This may be true, but has anyone here (or anywhere else) ever
checked to see that we can't program the universe exactly with
simple algorithms?
I think this is something new. (Check out what Stephen Wolfram has
been doing lately: http://www.wolframscience.com)
Everyone's
Bruno wrote:
Saibal wrote:
The Great Programmer can presumably compute certain correlations between
our obserations of what we think is a star and the state of the observed
system itself. As I see it the Great Programmer outputs descriptions,
including descriptions of an astronomer
?
Cheers
Saibal Mitra wrote:
The total number of states a certain person can be in is bounded. One
might argue that according to quantum mechanics a certain person will always
find himself alive, but all that means is that that person will always find
himself in one out
You'll have to ask Bruno, because that's what he wrote.
On 01-Jun-01, Saibal Mitra wrote:
BTW, do you know that Godel wrote a formalisation in the modal logic
system S5 of St. Anselm proof of the existence of God? (I'm not sure
there is any evidence that Godel takes his proof seriously
Bruno wrote:
Saibal wrote: (complete message below for the FORers)
Can't we prove that stars (and for that matter anything we observe)
exist
in at least some universes?
But does some universes exists ? To tell you frankly I have a problem
with
the word universe. I guess you take it as
George Levy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: a never ending universe history h is computed by a finite
nonhalting program p. To simulate randomness and noise etc, p invokes a
short pseudorandom generator subroutine q which also never halts. The
n-th pseudorandom event of
Wei Dai wrote:
This experiment is not a game, since the action of each participant only
affects his or her own payoff, and not the payoff of the other player.
Actually you can do this with just one participant, and maybe that will
make the paradoxical nature of anthropic reasoning clearer.
Maybe Jürgen can explain why the particular
bitstring defining your previous post has such a large probability?
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: Michael Rosefield ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:33
AM
Subject
Bruno wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test various
versions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different
approach.
By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travel
to different branches
Jürgen wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
Saibal Mitra wrote:
I think the source of the problem is equation 1 of Juergen's paper
such as time and space) can be derived from
nothing more than an arbitrary probability distribution defined over some
arbitrary set.
See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0008018
Saibal
- Original Message -
From:
James Higgo
To: Michael Rosefield ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jürgen wrote:
``Please read again. If "consciousness" is indeed a
well-defined concept,and if there are any "conscious" computable observers,
then they will becomputed. Otherwise they won't. In either case there is no
need to defineconsciousness - I have not seen a convincing definition
Instead of the previously discussed suicide
experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one
should be able to travelto different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you
are diagnosed with
Wei Dai wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:13:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be impossible to construct such a machine in our universe, but
can we
achieve the same results by slowing down the consciousness of the
observer
observing a conventional computer? In other words,
Bruno wrote:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: woensdag 29 maart 2000 11:40
Onderwerp: Re: Measure of the prisoner
Suppose that the simulated prisoner is a ``digital ´´ copy of a real
Saibal Mitra wrote
Recently an article appeared on the Los Alamos archive that
explains how, for certain systems, dynamics can be derived from probabilistic
arguments alone. I think that the formalism developed in the article can be
generalised, and used to explain the physical laws we observe without
101 - 194 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
