Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:34:29PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Russell: You wrote: What does it mean to have a material aspect? I see my model as requiring a time like aspect induced by the evolution triggering endurance meaningful question. Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space dimensions seem unavoidable. I'm not sure this follows. A single bit process can exist in zero dimensional space. However, perhaps single bit processes are too uninteresting. I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of [a discrete point] space time. If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct consequence of the space and time aspects. I suspect that something like this will explain matter eventually, so good luck with your theorizing. I'm personally intrigued by the Helon model, but don't really have the smarts to do anything with it. I take this as indicating that you hold that something [information processing?] is going on during an observer moment. This is as in your book as I understand it so far. I do not see this in my model. In my model an observer moment is a fixed state terminated by a transition to the next state. The selection of a next state is in part determined by the incompleteness of the current state which is solely a product of its history and the random sub set of the incompleteness that gets resolved by the state to state transition. Consciousness is inherent in the process of the transition wherein both states momentarily overlap [for lack of a better term], as some incompleteness is resolved [information added] and fresh incompleteness is generated by that resolution. Why don't you see this transition as a form of information processing? The transistions may be rather accidental in your model, but this is from a bird view perspective. From the frog perspective, the transitions must appear to be information processing. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: [My current mail client does not work the way I like and I can not spend the time to insert s in the right places so this indicator of who said what will be missing from my posts for awhile, I will use an xxx separator for my responses.] Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space dimensions seem unavoidable. I'm not sure this follows. A single bit process can exist in zero dimensional space. However, perhaps single bit processes are too uninteresting. xx I have found the no selection tool rather useful, so I will stick with it in this case for the time being. xxx I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of [a discrete point] space time. If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct consequence of the space and time aspects. I suspect that something like this will explain matter eventually, so good luck with your theorizing. I'm personally intrigued by the Helon model, but don't really have the smarts to do anything with it. xxx I will look at this and dust off my old stuff, which I have not looked at for several years. x Why don't you see this transition as a form of information processing? The transistions may be rather accidental in your model, but this is from a bird view perspective. From the frog perspective, the transitions must appear to be information processing. I will accept that for now. Importantly it seem to move the two points of view closer together Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: As I understand your Theory of Nothing book the Everything in it has or at least contains time like components [time postulate]. I agree but apparently for a different reason. In your reply to Jason you allowed that the OM machine [our machines also apparently differ] could have an extent in space as well. This seems to require the Everything to have space like aspects. Actually if it contains one dimension in a real sense to avoid selection it should contain more. If it has time and space aspects what prevents it from having material aspects? Until now I had felt that the Everything did not require space or material aspects but I am reconsidering the possibility. The time postulate is a requirement of observerhood. I'm not sure this means that time-like components are in the Everything, but I can accept this is possible. I don't know of any similar requirement for space, but I have tossed around some ideas to do with embedding dimension of networks. It is still very much an open question. What does it mean to have a material aspect? As I understand your response to Jason you allow two different observers [a fly and a human] in the same universe to have different OM durations and I do not see this. Perhaps I do not understand your response. Did you intend to have them in the same universe? Yours Hal Ruhl Sharing the same universe is I suppose equivalent to being able to communicate. Rather than a conscious fly, it might be easier to imagine an AI that works much faster than human intelligence, thus having smaller OM durations, but still able to communicate with humans (eg via a teletype interface). It would be interesting to see how different the perspective is. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: You wrote: The time postulate is a requirement of observerhood. I'm not sure this means that time-like components are in the Everything, but I can accept this is possible. I don't know of any similar requirement for space, but I have tossed around some ideas to do with embedding dimension of networks. It is still very much an open question. What does it mean to have a material aspect? I see my model as requiring a time like aspect induced by the evolution triggering endurance meaningful question. Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space dimensions seem unavoidable. I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of [a discrete point] space time. If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct consequence of the space and time aspects. Sharing the same universe is I suppose equivalent to being able to communicate. Rather than a conscious fly, it might be easier to imagine an AI that works much faster than human intelligence, thus having smaller OM durations, I take this as indicating that you hold that something [information processing?] is going on during an observer moment. This is as in your book as I understand it so far. I do not see this in my model. In my model an observer moment is a fixed state terminated by a transition to the next state. The selection of a next state is in part determined by the incompleteness of the current state which is solely a product of its history and the random sub set of the incompleteness that gets resolved by the state to state transition. Consciousness is inherent in the process of the transition wherein both states momentarily overlap [for lack of a better term], as some incompleteness is resolved [information added] and fresh incompleteness is generated by that resolution. Currently I see each such transition as being a state change for the entire universe supporting it. but still able to communicate with humans (eg via a teletype interface). It would be interesting to see how different the perspective is. Indeed. Hal Ruhl -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Russell: In response to Jason you wrote: An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve state change, In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require resolution. I suppose this constitutes a machine. I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider physical matrix? Its not obvious to me. What is your reasoning? Of course this finite amount of time will be observer dependent, How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular universe. Sounds like you're having a bob each way here... -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Russell: In response to Jason you wrote: An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve state change, In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require resolution. I suppose this constitutes a machine. I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider physical matrix? Its not obvious to me. What is your reasoning? As I understand your Theory of Nothing book the Everything in it has or at least contains time like components [time postulate]. I agree but apparently for a different reason. In your reply to Jason you allowed that the OM machine [our machines also apparently differ] could have an extent in space as well. This seems to require the Everything to have space like aspects. Actually if it contains one dimension in a real sense to avoid selection it should contain more. If it has time and space aspects what prevents it from having material aspects? Until now I had felt that the Everything did not require space or material aspects but I am reconsidering the possibility. Of course this finite amount of time will be observer dependent, How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular universe. Sounds like you're having a bob each way here... As I understand your response to Jason you allow two different observers [a fly and a human] in the same universe to have different OM durations and I do not see this. Perhaps I do not understand your response. Did you intend to have them in the same universe? Yours Hal Ruhl -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: In response to Jason you wrote: An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve state change, In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require resolution. I suppose this constitutes a machine. I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider physical matrix? ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must also be extended in time by some finite amount, rather than be of infinitesimal direction. I agree. Of course this finite amount of time will be observer dependent, How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular universe. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve state change, ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must also be extended in time by some finite amount, rather than be of infinitesimal direction. Of course this finite amount of time will be observer dependent, so it may well be that a fly's OM is of shorter duration than a human's, if a fly is capable of OMs at all (have you read my ant consciousness paper yet?). Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth, and allow you to experience that perspective for a moment, I would have the opinion this machine is a valid tool for drawing conclusions on the likelihood of certain creatures being conscious, even if you could only use the tool once. My formal objection, however, is that making the same judgment based on one's current perspective ignore conditional probability. It ignores a blindingly obvious premise that we already are a human. Anthropic reasoning in your paper asks What is the probability that I should be a human? I think a truer formulation is really What is the probability that I should be a human, given I am Russel Standish?. In the example I gave where some device could teleport your awareness into a random creature, there is no preexisting condition, but when we draw the conclusion starting from already being a human, the question is meaningless. This is just how I now see things, if you have a reason why the initial premise (of starting from a human perspective) can be ignored I am very interested in hearing it as it could change my perspective on the subject. Thanks, Jason One interesting aspect of all of this is what is the neurophysiological trick used by the human brain to pull a distributed (in both space and time) process into a single coherent here and now experienced by consciousness. This was once used to argue for substance dualism, but more recent people (eg Dennett) think that we're close to solving the neurological mechanism involved. I look forward to the day it is understood. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:42AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth, and allow you to experience that perspective for a moment, I would have the opinion this machine is a valid tool for drawing conclusions on the likelihood of certain creatures being conscious, even if you could only use the tool once. My formal objection, however, is that making the same judgment based on one's current perspective ignore conditional probability. It ignores a blindingly obvious premise that we already are a human. Anthropic reasoning in your paper asks What is the probability that I should be a human? I think a truer formulation is really What is the probability that I should be a human, given I am Russel Standish?. In the example I gave where some device could teleport your awareness into a random creature, there is no preexisting condition, but when we draw the conclusion starting from already being a human, the question is meaningless. This is just how I now see things, if you have a reason why the initial premise (of starting from a human perspective) can be ignored I am very interested in hearing it as it could change my perspective on the subject. Thanks, Jason I've heard this objection before, indeed I had a debate about it with someone (I can't quite remember who it was - perhaps its was you). Sadly, I really don't understand it, as I have never premised anything on being Russell Standish, nor even on just being a human. The only thing it is premised on is being a conscious being. Given this objection has come up before, perhaps there have been some papers discussing it. It would have important ramifications for all anthropic arguments, not just the ant one. If there are no papers on the topic, then there's a publishing opportunity for you :) Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
I appreciate the quick reply and your patience in answering my questions. Perhaps it would help if I explained the thought process that led me to where I am. When reading your ants are not conscious paper two questions came to mind that I could not resolve: 1. If anthropic reasoning is valid for determining whether or not other species are conscious, then every rare species should conclude they are the only ones capable of consciousness. (sould they not?) 2. What if the problem were stated differently, instead of starting with the class of humans what if it had been animals with brains, this would lead to an entirely different conclusion. Instead of concluding only humans (and a few human-like) animals are conscious, we would have concluded only animals with brains (and brain-like nerve complexes) are conscious. We could have compared the extreme rarity of animals with brains vs. protozoa or bacteria. I hope that I have bot burdened you with all these e-mails, this one will likely be my last on the topic of Ants are not conscious unless you or others have further questions about my view. Best Regards, Jason Resch On Mar 28, 2:17 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:42AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth, and allow you to experience that perspective for a moment, I would have the opinion this machine is a valid tool for drawing conclusions on the likelihood of certain creatures being conscious, even if you could only use the tool once. My formal objection, however, is that making the same judgment based on one's current perspective ignore conditional probability. It ignores a blindingly obvious premise that we already are a human. Anthropic reasoning in your paper asks What is the probability that I should be a human? I think a truer formulation is really What is the probability that I should be a human, given I am Russel Standish?. In the example I gave where some device could teleport your awareness into a random creature, there is no preexisting condition, but when we draw the conclusion starting from already being a human, the question is meaningless. This is just how I now see things, if you have a reason why the initial premise (of starting from a human perspective) can be ignored I am very interested in hearing it as it could change my perspective on the subject. Thanks, Jason I've heard this objection before, indeed I had a debate about it with someone (I can't quite remember who it was - perhaps its was you). Sadly, I really don't understand it, as I have never premised anything on being Russell Standish, nor even on just being a human. The only thing it is premised on is being a conscious being. Given this objection has come up before, perhaps there have been some papers discussing it. It would have important ramifications for all anthropic arguments, not just the ant one. If there are no papers on the topic, then there's a publishing opportunity for you :) Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:53:23AM -0700, Jason wrote: I appreciate the quick reply and your patience in answering my questions. Perhaps it would help if I explained the thought process that led me to where I am. When reading your ants are not conscious paper two questions came to mind that I could not resolve: 1. If anthropic reasoning is valid for determining whether or not other species are conscious, then every rare species should conclude they are the only ones capable of consciousness. (sould they not?) No - only that the more common ones are unlikely to be conscious. One also has to take into account total numbers throughout the species' lifetime. 2. What if the problem were stated differently, instead of starting with the class of humans what if it had been animals with brains, My argument was based on mass classes, rather than species classification. There is apriori a reasonable relationship between intelligence and body mass, as well as well-known distributions. About the most we can conclude from considering species classifications is that most animal species are not conscious, but it doesn't say which ones are. Since the animal world is dominated by insects or nematodes, this doesn't really tell us very much at all. The mass classification gives a better nuance. this would lead to an entirely different conclusion. Instead of concluding only humans (and a few human-like) animals are conscious, we would have concluded only animals with brains (and brain-like nerve complexes) are conscious. We could have compared the extreme rarity of animals with brains vs. protozoa or bacteria. Yes - I can see this might work. But what about organisms with toes. Since there are vastly more organisms without toes, than with, should we conclude that toeless organisms are not conscious? In fact the only correct conclusion is that there are more consious toed organisms than ones without toes - it is just possible that there is a rare species of octopus who is a toeless conscious organism for instance. Another scenario is that there are as many toeless conscious organisms as toed ones. This would make being toed an uncorrelated parameter (viz the country of birth argument I put in the paper. I hope that I have bot burdened you with all these e-mails, this one will likely be my last on the topic of Ants are not conscious unless you or others have further questions about my view. Best Regards, Jason Resch On Mar 28, 2:17 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:42AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth, and allow you to experience that perspective for a moment, I would have the opinion this machine is a valid tool for drawing conclusions on the likelihood of certain creatures being conscious, even if you could only use the tool once. My formal objection, however, is that making the same judgment based on one's current perspective ignore conditional probability. It ignores a blindingly obvious premise that we already are a human. Anthropic reasoning in your paper asks What is the probability that I should be a human? I think a truer formulation is really What is the probability that I should be a human, given I am Russel Standish?. In the example I gave where some device could teleport your awareness into a random creature, there is no preexisting condition, but when we draw the conclusion starting from already being a human, the question is meaningless. This is just how I now see things, if you have a reason why the initial premise (of starting from a human perspective) can be ignored I am very interested in hearing it as it could change my perspective on the subject. Thanks, Jason I've heard this objection before, indeed I had a debate about it with someone (I can't quite remember who it was - perhaps its was you). Sadly, I really don't understand it, as I have never premised anything on being Russell Standish, nor even on just being a human. The only thing it is premised on is being a conscious being. Given this objection has come up before, perhaps there have been some papers discussing it. It would have important ramifications for all anthropic arguments, not just the ant one. If there are no papers on the topic, then there's a publishing opportunity for you :) Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au
Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:16:06PM -0700, Jason wrote: A common theme on the everything list is the idea of an Observer moment, which is a snapshot of an observer's mind in a point of time, or the smallest amount of time a single conscious moment can be experienced in. However I think this overlooks the notion that information can be embedded across dimensions of both time and space. There are cases when information exists in space only, such as on a phonograph or CD, but there are also cases when information exists temporally, when the record is played the information is copied from a 3 dimensional space to the dimension of time. Also consider data transmitted over the Internet, its information pattern exists in its entirety within a 4-dimensional block view of the universe. Einstein showed how the distinction between the dimension of time and the dimensions of space are human imposed. So if information patterns/structures can span distances of time and space, perhaps the concept of an Observer Moment isn't the way it should be thought of. Perhaps we should think of it as an Observer's Information Space. The fact that the human brain is sees individual pictures flashed at 10-15 frames per second as motion, and the fact that we hear individual vibrations as sound if above 10-15 Hz may be ancillary evidence that the human brain's information space encompasses the past 0.1 seconds of sensory input in generating a model of the environment. If we consider a computational view for consciousness, the state of the computation which might be represented as a single Planck Time in this universe likely doesn't contain all the information necessary to create an observer moment, rather it is processing of information over dimensions of space and time that build a minimal information pattern necessary for a conscious experience. This reasoning implies that OM's can be different lengths of times for different observers, and no OM can be instantaneous. Simpler brained organisms such as flies might have an OM that spans much less time than a human brian's OM. Jason An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve state change, ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must also be extended in time by some finite amount, rather than be of infinitesimal direction. Of course this finite amount of time will be observer dependent, so it may well be that a fly's OM is of shorter duration than a human's, if a fly is capable of OMs at all (have you read my ant consciousness paper yet?). One interesting aspect of all of this is what is the neurophysiological trick used by the human brain to pull a distributed (in both space and time) process into a single coherent here and now experienced by consciousness. This was once used to argue for substance dualism, but more recent people (eg Dennett) think that we're close to solving the neurological mechanism involved. Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
