Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:08:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > > *> We are faced with a number of prospects. The first is there is some >> limit to complexity that any intelligent being can manage.* >> > > The smarter something is the more complexity it can handle > > , > > so If > a > Jupiter Brain was approaching > > such a limit > > that would give it motivation to add to its brain hardware. > > And besides, > > a Dyson Sphere would be big but not particularly complex, it would be less > complex than a modern computer chip because unlike the chip a sphere is > symmetrical so one part of it is just like another > > . Once you figure out how to makes one square meter of > > a Dyson Sphere > > you just keep doing the same thing over and over till its done. > > > But if its so simple why haven't we already built one? Because > we don't have 6.02*10^23 arms so we can keep doing the same thing > over and over > and be done before the sun burns out > ; > but with self reproducing nano > - > machines we can have as many arms as we want. > The basic rule of computers which I think holds for technology in general is that it may do what you have designed it to do, but that may not be what you want it to do. Even if you have a mole of nanobots doing things, who is keeping track of them to make sure they are doing what you want? And even if you have that massive computing system who is keeping track of the algorithms to make sure it is doing what you want and so forth. In fact this becomes Turing's thesis on the impossibility of a Universal Turing Machine on steroids. Already we are getting some problematic news with self-driving cars. Remember a test driver. or in a way un-driver, was killed not long ago because the algorithm failed to react properly to certain conditions. It did what it was programmed to do, not what the designers wanted it to do. Complexity explodes enormously and the designers become unable to understand or control their systems. We have strategic nuclear missiles interfaced with ever more complex systems, and in that case a screw up can be total. The smart phone, the smart TV, the smart home, the smart car, the smart bot in your body that reads our your biometrics, the smart bots that gather this data for various purposes the ... . Yeah this shit is starting to become disturbing already. Now we may soon be getting planetary climate and weather control along with bots that input information into and read information out from brains. This is a long way down from hypertech involved with controlling a star or a Jovian sized computer. And oh yeah, there are a lot of humans who are completely insane, and frankly we have put one in the White House. It may come down to the incomputability of the Kolmogoroff entropy for all possible systems. It is similar to trying to define randomness, when something that is purely random, say a symbol string, is not data compressible within any sort of general algorithm This is a form of the Turing thesis or Godel's theorem. In the end this might be the thing that kicks us in ass. Since this has some universality to it I might advance the plausible conjecture that any possible IGUS/ETI etc in the universe is similarly limited. This may then be one reason there are no massive astrophysical engineered objects out there; the amount of information necessary to build and control such things is far beyond any tractable computing system. LC > > >> *> The second is that intelligent life is extremely rare or maybe we >> are the only ones. * >> > > The evidence is we are the only one, or at least that nobody has ever > gotten much further than we have right now. > > >> *> This seems to go against some general Copernican principle.* >> > > The > Copernican principle > is not a law of physics and in fact its clearly not true. We don't live > at a typical time, life has existed for almost 4 billion years but > intelligent life for less than a million and technology only a thousand or > so and life first left the earth only a few decades ago. We don't live in a > typical place either, a typical place only has one hydrogen atom per cubic > meter. We are lucky enough to live at an extraordinary time in a > extraordinary > place. > > *> The third is the biology itself is some sort of spectacular fluke, >> maybe as a hard emergent process, that Earth is the only biologically >> active planet in the entire universe.* >> > > That could be. The fourth possibility is civilizations always destroy > themselves or stagnate and individuals have no interest in doing anything > except spending eternity in a electronic crack house. > > > John K Clark > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubsc
Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *> We are faced with a number of prospects. The first is there is some > limit to complexity that any intelligent being can manage.* > The smarter something is the more complexity it can handle , so If a Jupiter Brain was approaching such a limit that would give it motivation to add to its brain hardware. And besides, a Dyson Sphere would be big but not particularly complex, it would be less complex than a modern computer chip because unlike the chip a sphere is symmetrical so one part of it is just like another . Once you figure out how to makes one square meter of a Dyson Sphere you just keep doing the same thing over and over till its done. But if its so simple why haven't we already built one? Because we don't have 6.02*10^23 arms so we can keep doing the same thing over and over and be done before the sun burns out ; but with self reproducing nano - machines we can have as many arms as we want. > *> The second is that intelligent life is extremely rare or maybe we are > the only ones. * > The evidence is we are the only one, or at least that nobody has ever gotten much further than we have right now. > *> This seems to go against some general Copernican principle.* > The Copernican principle is not a law of physics and in fact its clearly not true. We don't live at a typical time, life has existed for almost 4 billion years but intelligent life for less than a million and technology only a thousand or so and life first left the earth only a few decades ago. We don't live in a typical place either, a typical place only has one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. We are lucky enough to live at an extraordinary time in a extraordinary place. *> The third is the biology itself is some sort of spectacular fluke, > maybe as a hard emergent process, that Earth is the only biologically > active planet in the entire universe.* > That could be. The fourth possibility is civilizations always destroy themselves or stagnate and individuals have no interest in doing anything except spending eternity in a electronic crack house. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:36:36 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> *If IGUS or ETI exist elsewhere, I would argue that probably there are
>>> scaling limits to the powers such beings are able to control. The universe
>>> has matter in it, but it has an average density of 10^{-29}g/cm^3,*
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, if you picked an average cubic meter of space in the universe it
>> would only have about one hydrogen atom in it, but that's irrelevant
>> because the space near stars is very very far from average.
>>
>> Jupiter alone has enough matter to make a Dyson Sphere, especially if the
>> sphere's radius was considerably less than the Earth's orbital radius, and
>> ET would probably pick that design. The efficiency of solar cells increases
>> in more intense sunlight, some existing solar photovoltaic installations
>> use a mirror or a Fresnel lens
>>
>> to concentrate sunlight to up to 900 times normal earth intensity and aim
>> it at a solar cell. One Dyson Sphere would produce 33 trillion times more
>> energy than the entire human race uses now, and it would keep producing it
>> for billions of years. And there is no reason ET couldn't make billions of
>> Dyson Spheres in a very short amount of time, astronomically speaking. And
>> yet we see nothing.
>>
>>
>>> *> and the overwhelming percentage of matter in dense configurations
>>> is in stars that are hot and hard to access.*
>>>
>>
>> ET wouldn't even want to access the matter in stars because that's the
>> source of the very power they're trying to get at.
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> *Even tearing up planets for materials is hard and energy intensive.*
>>>
>>
>>
>> Energy is not a problem, there is plenty of energy available near stars
>> but you're right it's hard, at least its hard to do right now because we
>> don't have Drexler style Nanotechnology, but we don't have it because some
>> law of physics forbids it, we don't have it simply because of lack of
>> engineering skill. But new skills can be acquired. Brain surgery isn't
>> hard if you know how and once we have Nanotechnology
>>
>> building a Dyson Sphere will no longer be hard.
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> *I would argue there are simply scaling limits to the control or
>>> abilities of intelligent beings.*
>>>
>>
>> You haven't argued it you've simply stated it.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>
> I am simply proposing it. I have no particular proof. At some point though
> any ETI/IGUS that attempts to do these things might be akin to a flea
> climbing an elephant's butt with rape on its mind.
>
> We are faced with a number of prospects. The first is there is some limit
> to complexity that any intelligent being can manage. In this scenario there
> would be intelligent life elsewhere, but they are unable to push into these
> extreme hyper-tech areas. The second is that intelligent life is extremely
> rare or maybe we are the only ones. This seems to go against some general
> Copernican principle. The third is the biology itself is some sort of
> spectacular fluke, maybe as a hard emergent process, that Earth is the only
> biologically active planet in the entire universe.
>
> LC
>
*Another possibility is that ET's exist, but for whatever reasons have no
motivation to build Dyson Spheres. In this scenario they could be plentiful
or rare, but without interest in such a project or others which are
comparable in scope. AG*
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Interpretive cards (MWI, Bohm, Copenhagen: collect ’em all)
> On 11 Feb 2018, at 23:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Scott Aaronson has an interesting blog entry on quantum interpretations: > > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3628 > > He seems somewhat conflicted over which interpretation to believe. > "Anyway, as I said, MWI is the best interpretation if we leave ourselves out > of the picture. what would it be like to be maintained in a coherent > superposition of thinking two different thoughts A and B, and then to get > measured in the |A>+|B>, |A>-|B> basis? Would it even be like anything? Or is > there something about our consciousness that depends on decoherence, > irreversibility, full participation in the arrow of time, not living in an > enclosed little unitary box something that we'd necessarily destroy if > we tried to set up a large-scale interference experiment on our own brains, > or any other conscious entities?" > > I think the idea that consciousness depends on full participation in the > arrow of time -- namely, the irreversible formation of memories -- is > something that need to be taken seriously. This is what I thought for a very long time, and that gives a relation between the knower, and its personal memories, and is coherent with the temporal interpretation of the S4Grz1 logics. It is also quite suggested by Everett formulation/interpretation of QM, with the personal histories determined by the sequence of measurement and “sharp” results. Yet, it is what salvia makes me able to doubt, … until I saw that the independence of consciousness from time and space explains better the enlightenment in the arithmetical self-reference theory. So, to simplify a bit, before salvia, I was pretty much with you here, and I thought that enlightenment state was the “pure” Löbian state (the logic G, G*): enlightenment = (Universal => Löbian). But after salvia, I realise that this could be false, and consciousness is more tricky and a bit less Bergsonian or Heraclitean than I thought, and more Parmenidien and Hindouist or buddhist (some school), and I think now that enlightenment = (Löbian => Universal). Only the differentiation of consciousness create time, but consciousness can live in an undifferentiated highly dissociative state. It simplifies the problem, consciousness becomes an attribute to all machines, and only when they differentiates, from interaction, stories, does that consciousness restricted to an ego which identifies itself to what he remembers, quickly, forgetting who remember the first memories. I use the quasi-axiomatic that consciousness, for the machine M, more or less: True for M Knowable by M Non provable by M Non doubtable by M Non definable by M If the enlightenment theory above is correct, as the induction axioms is what lead the universal machine to Löbianity, and that would already the beginning of the fall (of the soul). The induction axiom would be the first illusion! Nelson should love this. It does not make PA inconsistent, but it makes it having the white rabbit (reality relation) if the induction axioms were postulated in the ontology. Things are even worse if we put an axiom of infinity in the ontology. Judson Webb was more right than I understood at first: mechanism *is* an ontological finitism. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> >
>> *If IGUS or ETI exist elsewhere, I would argue that probably there are
>> scaling limits to the powers such beings are able to control. The universe
>> has matter in it, but it has an average density of 10^{-29}g/cm^3,*
>>
>
>
> Yes, if you picked an average cubic meter of space in the universe it
> would only have about one hydrogen atom in it, but that's irrelevant
> because the space near stars is very very far from average.
>
> Jupiter alone has enough matter to make a Dyson Sphere, especially if the
> sphere's radius was considerably less than the Earth's orbital radius, and
> ET would probably pick that design. The efficiency of solar cells increases
> in more intense sunlight, some existing solar photovoltaic installations
> use a mirror or a Fresnel lens
>
> to concentrate sunlight to up to 900 times normal earth intensity and aim
> it at a solar cell. One Dyson Sphere would produce 33 trillion times more
> energy than the entire human race uses now, and it would keep producing it
> for billions of years. And there is no reason ET couldn't make billions of
> Dyson Spheres in a very short amount of time, astronomically speaking. And
> yet we see nothing.
>
>
>> *> and the overwhelming percentage of matter in dense configurations is
>> in stars that are hot and hard to access.*
>>
>
> ET wouldn't even want to access the matter in stars because that's the
> source of the very power they're trying to get at.
>
>
>
>> >
>> *Even tearing up planets for materials is hard and energy intensive.*
>>
>
>
> Energy is not a problem, there is plenty of energy available near stars
> but you're right it's hard, at least its hard to do right now because we
> don't have Drexler style Nanotechnology, but we don't have it because some
> law of physics forbids it, we don't have it simply because of lack of
> engineering skill. But new skills can be acquired. Brain surgery isn't
> hard if you know how and once we have Nanotechnology
>
> building a Dyson Sphere will no longer be hard.
>
>
>> >
>> *I would argue there are simply scaling limits to the control or
>> abilities of intelligent beings.*
>>
>
> You haven't argued it you've simply stated it.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
I am simply proposing it. I have no particular proof. At some point though
any ETI/IGUS that attempts to do these things might be akin to a flea
climbing an elephant's butt with rape on its mind.
We are faced with a number of prospects. The first is there is some limit
to complexity that any intelligent being can manage. In this scenario there
would be intelligent life elsewhere, but they are unable to push into these
extreme hyper-tech areas. The second is that intelligent life is extremely
rare or maybe we are the only ones. This seems to go against some general
Copernican principle. The third is the biology itself is some sort of
spectacular fluke, maybe as a hard emergent process, that Earth is the only
biologically active planet in the entire universe.
LC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Interpretive cards (MWI, Bohm, Copenhagen: collect ’em all)
No interpretation is really physics. These are more in a way metaphysics. They are not consistent with each other and yet they are commensurate with quantum mechanics. This means they are auxiliary. They generally can be lumped into two categories, those that are ψ-epistemic and those that are ψ-ontic, which in some way might reflect an undecidability issue with quantum mechanics. Examples of these for ψ-epistemic interpretations are Copenhagen, GRW or objective collapse, and those that are ψ-ontic are MWI or the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation. LC On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 4:30:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > Scott Aaronson has an interesting blog entry on quantum interpretations: > > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3628 > > He seems somewhat conflicted over which interpretation to believe. > "Anyway, as I said, MWI is the best interpretation if we leave ourselves > out of the picture. what would it be like to be maintained in a > coherent superposition of thinking two different thoughts A and B, and > then to get measured in the |A>+|B>, |A>-|B> basis? Would it even be > like anything? Or is there something about our consciousness that > depends on decoherence, irreversibility, full participation in the arrow > of time, not living in an enclosed little unitary box something > that we'd necessarily destroy if we tried to set up a large-scale > interference experiment on our own brains, or any other conscious > entities?" > > I think the idea that consciousness depends on full participation in the > arrow of time -- namely, the irreversible formation of memories -- is > something that need to be taken seriously. > > Bruce > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *If IGUS or ETI exist elsewhere, I would argue that probably there are
> scaling limits to the powers such beings are able to control. The universe
> has matter in it, but it has an average density of 10^{-29}g/cm^3,*
>
Yes, if you picked an average cubic meter of space in the universe it would
only have about one hydrogen atom in it, but that's irrelevant because the
space near stars is very very far from average.
Jupiter alone has enough matter to make a Dyson Sphere, especially if the
sphere's radius was considerably less than the Earth's orbital radius, and
ET would probably pick that design. The efficiency of solar cells increases
in more intense sunlight, some existing solar photovoltaic installations
use a mirror or a Fresnel lens
to concentrate sunlight to up to 900 times normal earth intensity and aim
it at a solar cell. One Dyson Sphere would produce 33 trillion times more
energy than the entire human race uses now, and it would keep producing it
for billions of years. And there is no reason ET couldn't make billions of
Dyson Spheres in a very short amount of time, astronomically speaking. And
yet we see nothing.
> *> and the overwhelming percentage of matter in dense configurations is
> in stars that are hot and hard to access.*
>
ET wouldn't even want to access the matter in stars because that's the
source of the very power they're trying to get at.
> >
> *Even tearing up planets for materials is hard and energy intensive.*
>
Energy is not a problem, there is plenty of energy available near stars but
you're right it's hard, at least its hard to do right now because we don't
have Drexler style Nanotechnology, but we don't have it because some law of
physics forbids it, we don't have it simply because of lack of engineering
skill. But new skills can be acquired. Brain surgery isn't hard if you
know how and once we have Nanotechnology
building a Dyson Sphere will no longer be hard.
> >
> *I would argue there are simply scaling limits to the control or abilities
> of intelligent beings.*
>
You haven't argued it you've simply stated it.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 4:58:41 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> If IGUS or ETI exist elsewhere, I would argue that probably there are
> scaling limits to the powers such beings are able to control. The universe
> has matter in it, but it has an average density of 10^{-29}g/cm^3, and the
> overwhelming percentage of matter in dense configurations is in stars that
> are hot and hard to access. Even tearing up planets for materials is hard
> and energy intensive. Interstellar gas by contrast if extremely diffuse. I
> would argue there are simply scaling limits to the control or abilities of
> intelligent beings.
>
> LC
>
*Although your reasoning in these matters seems plausible, even persuasive,
you mustn't forget that you're arguing with an expert in ETI, inclusive of
their motives. AG *
>
>
> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 8:55:32 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * Most likely they evolved like us with neuro-networks adapted from some
>>> natural condition and eventually as they progress they find they can no
>>> longer manage things.*
>>>
>>
>> When things get complicated we can't add new brain hardware, but a
>> Jupiter brain can. And besides, the entire galaxy isn't going to be managed
>> from one central point.
>>
>>
>>
>>> * > Their situation implodes. I suspect our situation will implode
>>> this century.*
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps civilizations always do destroy themselves, but if so I don't
>> think it will be for the reason you suggest..
>>
>>
>>
>>> > **
>>> *As for von Neumann probes, these will over time evolve to form
>>> potentially a sort of "galactic bacteria." They may simply not evolve in
>>> most cases to engage in massive programs.*
>>>
>>
>> Von Neumann probes
>> didn't evolve they were designed and if they're designed to make copies
>> of themselves so they can make large things, like Dyson spheres, then I
>> can find no reason why they wouldn't.
>>
>>
>>
>>> * > It may be more to their advantage to stay small and take advantage
>>> of the sparse resources available by being conservative.*
>>>
>>
>> What sparse resources
>>
>> ? There are plenty of atoms around stars and plenty of energy too, and
>> that's all a Von Neumann probe
>>
>> needs
>> .
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter
If IGUS or ETI exist elsewhere, I would argue that probably there are
scaling limits to the powers such beings are able to control. The universe
has matter in it, but it has an average density of 10^{-29}g/cm^3, and the
overwhelming percentage of matter in dense configurations is in stars that
are hot and hard to access. Even tearing up planets for materials is hard
and energy intensive. Interstellar gas by contrast if extremely diffuse. I
would argue there are simply scaling limits to the control or abilities of
intelligent beings.
LC
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 8:55:32 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>> * Most likely they evolved like us with neuro-networks adapted from some
>> natural condition and eventually as they progress they find they can no
>> longer manage things.*
>>
>
> When things get complicated we can't add new brain hardware, but a
> Jupiter brain can. And besides, the entire galaxy isn't going to be managed
> from one central point.
>
>
>
>> * > Their situation implodes. I suspect our situation will implode this
>> century.*
>>
>
> Perhaps civilizations always do destroy themselves, but if so I don't
> think it will be for the reason you suggest..
>
>
>
>> > **
>> *As for von Neumann probes, these will over time evolve to form
>> potentially a sort of "galactic bacteria." They may simply not evolve in
>> most cases to engage in massive programs.*
>>
>
> Von Neumann probes
> didn't evolve they were designed and if they're designed to make copies
> of themselves so they can make large things, like Dyson spheres, then I
> can find no reason why they wouldn't.
>
>
>
>> * > It may be more to their advantage to stay small and take advantage
>> of the sparse resources available by being conservative.*
>>
>
> What sparse resources
>
> ? There are plenty of atoms around stars and plenty of energy too, and
> that's all a Von Neumann probe
>
> needs
> .
>
> John K Clark
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
