Based on physics, what insights do you make about reality?

Post Reply New Topic

Before I start my reply, I’d like to mention that there was a philosopher named Ludwig Wittgenstein, who toward the end of his career, declared that Western philosophy consists of a load of crap. He gave a lot of reasons why, but that’s the gist of it.
.
In a previous post, I quoted Chalmers as admitting that, over the history of Western philosophy, no one has made progress on the detection, measurement of, analysis and explanation of the illusory (imaginary) Consciousness.
.
Wittgenstein, too, mentioned that such endeavors haven’t gotten anywhere, in all the centuries of Western philosophy.
.
But, where Chalmers seemed to expect that they would, hopefully maybe in 50 or 100 years, Wittgenstein dismissed Western philosophy’s perpetual “investigations” and spewing-forth, as a waste of time that, even if pursued forever, would never accomplish its goals. He was right.
.
I think part of Wittgenstein’s criticism was about the unprovability of any metaphysics. He was right. No metaphysics is provable.
.
…at least not if you say that “proving” Skepticism --that’s my short name for the Eliminative Ontic Structural Non-Realism that I propose--would require disproving Materialism—but they could both be true (…though the unparsimonious and superfluous Materialism would be hard to justify).
.
But Skepticism doesn’t make any assumptions or posit any brute-facts. Nor does it say anything that isn’t inevitable and self-evident. How different is that from being “proved”?
.
Skepticism is about hypothetical systems inter-referring of hypothetical if-then facts. No one doubts that there inter-referring systems of such abstract facts—which, as I said don’t have or need any meaning, applicability, existence, reality or factualness other than within their own inter-referring context.
.
Tegmark calls his proposal the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).
.
I don’t call his or my proposal a hypothesis.
.
It isn’t a hypothesis. It’s a fact.
.
It isn’t in doubt or subject to argument, that there are those if-then facts, with their hypothetical if-clauses. …or inter-referring systems of such “if-then”s.
.
If there is the objectively-existent “stuff” of the Materialists, it would be superfluous, because, as Faraday, Tippler and Tegmark pointed out, our experience, observations and experiments are consistent with there being only the hypothetical structure, without the objectively-existent “stuff”.
.
Your life-experience possibility story, including the possibility-world, our physical world, in which it’s set, is such a system of inter-referring if-then facts.
.
Before I get to my reply, I’d like to paste, at the beginning of this post, something from the end of it:
.
We’ve been in this life for so long that we’re used to it, but, the fact that we’re in a life is really remarkable and surprising. How and why did this life start? How and why did this happen?
.
I’ve tried to offer a metaphysical explanation, but that doesn’t in the least diminish the remarkableness and surprisingness.
.
Did you see a movie called Wolf, with Jack Nicholson? In that movie, a character named Vijav Alezais made that point.
.
Do we sometimes get glimpses of something more fundamental or real than our physical world? Maybe.
.
Have you ever awakened, in the morning, from a dream in which you knew something really important and really good? …good beyond description. But you don’t remember what it was.
.
That’s a rare experience, but some report it.
.
Some spiritual-teachers say that it wasn’t a dream. They say that you were waking from deep-sleep.
.
They say that what you’re remembering is what the Nothing of deep-sleep was like.
.
…complete absence of problems, need, lack, incompletion. …like what will be there for us at the end of lives.
.
The reason why you don’t remember any details about is that there weren’t any. There was nothing to remember, other than the general sense of goodness beyond description.
Now, my reply:
.
You wrote:
.
{quote}
I think my own trouble with accepting the notion that there's no 'woo' is that I've experienced it a bit too vividly to ignore it.
{unquote}
.
To a Materialist, Scientificist or Atheist, and the self-styled “skeptics” who define skepticism as Materialsim, Atheism and Scientificism, “Woo” means anything other than Materialism or Scientificism (Science-Worship).
.
Thank you for directly confronting the use of the word “Woo”.
.
Speaking for myself, I’m not a Materialist, Scientificist, or Atheist.
.
The metaphysics that I propose is an Idealism.
.
You continued:
.
{quote}
There do seem to be certain kinds of laws to it, therefore I find it interesting to explore those laws and try to figure out just what it was that I encountered or that encountered me. Even if the universe is ultimately a big identity soup where all is all, we're living finite lives and it seems like there's a certain intermediate phase between the finite and infinite.
{unquote}
.
Yes, we’re temporarily living in a (sequence of?) physical world(s). …in a temporary excursion from Eternity. Our lives are temporary, but I suggest that ultimately our experience isn’t.
.
I emphasize that Eternity isn’t an infinite amount of time. It’s Timelessness. …not the same thing.
.
Some might expect Eternity, with nothing happening, to be “boring”. But there can’t be any boredom without time. I suggest that, ultimately, really, nothing needs to happen.
.
As you know, people have reported, at the beginning of the dying process, a near-death experience (NDE). Hinduism and Buddhism have mentioned temporary heavens or hells, which are experienced before a person
goes to his/her next life. The NDEs sound like they could be the beginning of what the Hindus and Buddhists are referring to.
.
You continued:
.
{quote}
People will have contact with strange forces, certain kinds of beings, whether they're ceremonial magicians, shamans, mystics, or even just plain average people who happen to be in the right place, time, or space in their own lives for such doors of perception to open. To that extent though the idea of writing all current examinations as bad-philosophy or artificial creation of necessities for sentimental reasons breaks down - unless you really are talking about people making up philosophies for sentimental reasons (they do exist but that doesn't apply to everyone and may not even apply to most people) and in that case it only applies to them.
{unquote}
.
What I was saying about Western academic philosophers artificially making things up, to give them something to write about, was only about Western academic philosophers.
.
I didn’t mean to sound like a Materialist or Scientificist.
.
I just feel that Reality is most likely to be simple.
.
…as William of Ockham suggested, in the late 1200s or early 1300s.
.
{quote}
Like fundamentalists I don't think they're particularly interesting and similarly they aren't going to do much, at least in this sphere, in terms of bringing human knowledge along further - largely because they have no touchstones for orientation other than religious texts or hearsay.
{unquote}
.
Agreed.
.
{quote}
The ways in which the larger conscious dynamics of the universe seem to play with us reminds me of a stacking structure and the best analogy seems to be my ability to control the cells in my own body by a certain sense of will. It seems like consciousness of 'I exist' or 'I am' comes up from every cell to a degree, apexes in my central nervous system (most of us feel this sensation around our frontal lobe or in the area of our eyes) and then - the thing that trips people out - we can react to a sensation, decide to go for a walk, or do something that in turn controls our skeletal muscles. Rather than really considering that top-down causality it seems like the model of bundling makes the most sense, ie. that our conscious 'I' experience is the apex of the upward chain and that we then look, so to speak, back down the chain via our senses both at our own bodies and the external environment.
{unquote}
.
I don’t divide us up in that way, between top, bottom, body, Mind, Consciousness, etc.
.
I say that we’re just us. No need for artificial dissection of us into those parts.
.
…in keeping with William of Ockham’s admonition about not overcomplicating things.
.
But you’re right that there are amazing, remarkable, nearly unbelievable facts and experiences.
.
We’ve been in this life for so long that we’re used to it, but, the fact that we’re in a life is really remarkable and surprising. How and why did this life start? How and why did this happen?
.
I’ve tried to offer a metaphysical explanation, but that doesn’t in the least diminish the remarkableness and surprisingness.
.
Did you see a movie called Wolf, with Jack Nicholson? In that movie, a character named Vijav Alezais made that point.
.
Do we get glimpses of something more fundamental or real than our physical world? Maybe.
.
Have you ever awakened, in the morning, from a dream in which you knew something really important and really good? …good beyond description. But you don’t remember what it was.
.
That’s a rare experience, but some report it.
.
Some spiritual-teachers say that it wasn’t a dream. They say that you were waking from deep-sleep.
.
They say that what you’re remembering is what the Nothing of deep-sleep was like.
.
…complete absence of problems, need, lack, incompletion. …like what will be there for us at the end of lives.
.
The reason why you don’t remember any details about is that there weren’t any. There was nothing to remember, other than the general sense of goodness beyond description.
.
Michael829

A fact? I don't think so. I've gone through all of your comments here, and whilst you clearly lay out what you yourself personally believe, you haven't actually presented any evidence, or even convincing argumentation, that would make any reasonable person consider your hypothesis to have any merit. All you do is assert, and criticise those who don't accept what you claim.

I don't accept your reasons for accepting reincarnation either.

Regarding what I said about the possibility of reincarnation, someone could argue that the transition from one life-story to another seems like an implausible, impossible discontinuity that could only happen in fiction.

But I remind you that the person doesn't perceive that transition. Before the time s/he in the foetal stage of the next life, s/he has already quite forgotten that there was a previous life.

...just as, in sleep (as exemplified in dreams) you don't know about your waking life.

So, as far as you're concerned, even at the early beginning of a next life, You have no memory of a previous one.

As far as you (or anyone) are concerned, there wasn't one.

Michael829

(Either this didn't post the first time, or else I somehow inadvertenty deleted it when I posted my other message (the one just before this one) ).

You said:

{quote}
A fact? I don't think so.
{unquote}
.
As Michael Faraday, in 1844, first pointed out (at least he was probably the first Westerner to say it), our physical world is completely described by mathematical and logical relational facts.
.
Abstract logical and mathematical facts, about hypotheticals, aren’t in doubt. They’re facts.
.
Likewise an inter-referring system of such facts. I don’t claim that such a system has any meaning, reality, existence or factualness other than in its own context.
.
The “if” clause of the if-then facts that I referred to is, of course, hypothetical. But then so is the “then” clause, because its truth depends on the hypothetical “if” clause. The whole thing is hypothetical, in the sense that it isn’t saying that something is objectively true. It’s just a hypothetical “if” fact.
.
But, with the understanding that its “if “ and its “then” aren’t objectively true, the if-then fact is still a fact about a relation between those two hypotheticals.
.
And, as I said, an if-then fact can, itself, be part of the “if “ clause of another if-then fact.
.
The point here is that I’m not saying a whole lot when I say these things.
.
And, when you aren’t saying anything, then can you be said to be saying something incorrect?
.
Anyway, such a system of hypotheticals can completely describe our physical world. Therefore, our physical world needn’t be anything other than that. That’s a fact, not a hypothesis.
.
Sure, I can’t prove that Materialism isn’t true. I can’t prove that Materialism’s objectively, fundamentally existent “stuff” and “things” don’t objectively exist. But, if they do, they’re superfluous, because they aren’t needed to explain our experiences, observations and experiments in this physical world. That, too, isn’t a hypothesis.
.
So I’m not saying that Materialism isn’t true. I’m just saying that it wouldn’t make any difference if it were true.
.
So, have I made an assumption or a controversial assertion?
.
Sure, we aren’t used to speaking of our seemingly “concrete” physical world as a system of hypotheticals.
.
But that doesn’t amount to a flaw, error or questionableness in what I’m saying. It just means that what I’m saying is different from what we’re used to hearing.
.
{quote}
…you haven't actually presented any evidence…
{unquote}
.
There’s no evidence that could distinguish or adjudicate between Materialism and Skepticism. In fact, that’s just another way of saying the reason why Materialism would be superfluous even if true.
.
When evidence can’t distinguish between two proposed metaphysicses, then there’s just no need for the unparsimonious one, the one (Materialism) that posits a brute-fact.
.
{quote}
, or even convincing argumentation…
{unquote}
.
Maybe there are some above, in this reply.
.
{quote}
, that would make any reasonable person consider your hypothesis to have any merit.
{unquote}
.
Surely you aren’t saying that physicists Michael Faraday and Max Tegmark aren’t reasonable people.
.
And Wittgenstein, too, once said that there are no “things”, only facts.
.
So I’m in good company.
.
{quote}
All you do is assert, and criticise those who don't accept what you claim.
{unquote}
.
But Wittgenstein made the same criticism of Western philosophy. And Chalmers, too, admitted that all these centuries of spewing-forth speculation haven’t produced answers.
,
Objectively, what I’ve been saying about some popular philosophical beliefs is that they’re unparsimonious and (for reasons that I’ve stated) would be superflulous even if true. That isn’t a personal criticism of anyone.
.
{quote}

I don't accept your reasons for accepting reincarnation either.
{unquote}
.
I don’t claim for sure that reincarnation is true. I do say that it’s consistent with my metaphysics, and even implied by it. …consistent with or implied by the parsimonisous metaphsyics.
.
Here’s an argument against reincarnation:
.
In sleep, at some times, we reach or approach a state of Nothing. But we (at least usually) don’t remember any experience of sleep, other than before we go to sleep, or dreams that we have. So, going to sleep is just going to sleep. Then who’s to say that death is any different from just going to sleep?
.
Answer:
.
For one thing, we do have dreams, and so sleep isn’t without experience.
.
Additionally, it’s now known that we don’t remember most of our dreams (we usually remember them only when they occur at or near when we wake up). Therefore, the fact that we don’t later remember an experience doesn’t mean that we don’t have that experience. So, for death to be like going to sleep doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s without experience.
.
Besides, if there’s a stage of sleep or death at which you’re completely shut-off, and there are no experiences, then obviously there must be a stage just before it, during which you still do have experience. …though you might be too nearly unconscious to remember details of your life. After all, in dreams, you don’t remember details of your actual waking life, or even that there is one. Often you believe the reality of the dream. …experience it as actual.
.
That sound like, and supports, the assumptions that I made in my discussion of reincarnation, and of the eventual Timelessness at the end of lives.
.
If reincarnation sounds fantastic, I remind you that the fact that you’re in this life is fantastic, remarkable, surprising. …that you’re in a life at all. …that this life started.
.
And, if the conditions were conducive to lead to the beginning of this life, and if conditions are similar at the end of this life, then what’s the suggested implication?
.
But of course I don’t claim to have proof that there’s reincarnation. Though reincarnation is consistent with my metaphsyics, it isn’t essential to it or the basis or justification for it.
.
Michael829

How do you know this though? That's what I don't understand. You are so certain of all of this, but why?

"...someone could argue that the transition from one life-story to another..."

What if this life is the only one? You're just assuming, within that statement, that reincarnation is an established fact. It isn't.

"...But I remind you that the person doesn't perceive that transition. Before the time s/he in the foetal stage of the next life, s/he has already quite forgotten that there was a previous life."

Maybe there is no transition. Maybe we are just born, grow up and old, and then die. Maybe this is all there is. I don't know that myself, I could be wrong, and reincarnation (and other forms of immortality) may be real, but until I have much more to help me to decide this issue one way or the other, I will remain uncommitted at this point regarding its possibility or likelihood. Absent the availability of any evidence, that is the sensible position to take.

Yes, I agree, they describe our world. Mathematics is useful for that purpose, which is why we value it so highly, but as the old saying goes, "One should not mistake the map for the territory".



"...no meaning, reality, existence or factual basis other than in its own context" - Then why bother with it? What purpose could it possibly serve?



Okay, I'm with you so far.



Yes.



Yes, one can have a sequence of such causal relationships, taking one far away from the initial event that got the whole thing running in the first place.



Okay.



Well, you sure do use a lot of words to say nothing.



Perhaps, but even so they only describe it. There is a big difference between how one goes about describing something, and the actual thing in question that is being described. Different people will have their different approaches to how they go about describing what they encounter, whatever that thing may be. It's just language, and everyone uses it differently.



I see. You have a problem with the underlying basis upon which materialism rests - i.e. the presumption that objective reality, upon which modern-day science and its theories, rest is actually "out there". If that's not the case, then ideas within science rest upon a delusion. I don't accept the materialist's position either, but like you I also can't prove them wrong about it (I just don't think it makes any sense to me, that's all).



Okay.



Not so far within this particular post, but my impression is that you are perhaps confusing how we go about describing our world, via language, with the world as it is commonly appreciated by the vast majority of us (which then goes on to form the basis for our beliefs about "objective reality").



That's probably a part of the problem, yes.



Yes, it could just be a simple case of misinterpretation of what you actually mean on my part.



Yes to the first sentence here (so I probably shouldn't have made that demand), but I'm not so sure the consequences of materialism being true would be "superfluous". Somehow I think it would matter a great deal to most of us if such a thing really could be established for certain.



Agree. I don't like the lazy cop-out of something that cannot currently be explained as being just a "brute fact". I've noticed quite a few atheists resort to this when they are cornered (I don't have anything against the idea of atheism, just many of its current advocates who like to strut their stuff on places like YouTube).

I'll go over what you have written again. I was probably too harsh in what I said before (I do that a lot for some reason), and it could just be a simple case of the manner in which we express what we are trying to get across not being quite the same.

Michael, to quote you use the [ symbol, type in the word 'quote' (but without the inverted commas), and then this sign ] , and without any spaces. You paste the text you want to quote after you have copied it, and then at the end of the quoted text you use once again this sign [, then this sign / and then the word 'quote' (again without the inverted commas), and then close off with this ], and once again without any spaces.

You can also do what I just did now - use the quote function that is just to the right top of the message, and which gives you something that (in my case) looks like this [quote="Lintar"] at the beginning of the text.

My take on all the chit-chat:

Having some type of eastern or western esoteric system to work through, whether it is Swami Vivikenanda's yoga books or something Daoist in flavor, or whether it's Franz Bardon's Initiation Into Hermetics, some similar Golden Dawn or Rosicrucian/Martinist set of studies, Kabbalistic Tarot study of some type, even just a super-lean system like William G Gray hints at in Magic Ritual Methods, does help you break plane a bit and start being able to rake in these experiences for yourself. Ya know, get some data-points to the theory otherwise you run the risk of mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

There's a reason why I still do it, even talking like a nihilist as I do sometimes, and it has nothing to do with The Secret or any other balderdash like that.

{quote}
How do you know this though? That's what I don't understand. You are so certain of all of this, but why?
{unquote}
.
No, I’ve been repeating thoughout that I don’t claim for sure that there’s reincarnation.
.
I’ve been repeating throughout that I can’t prove that there’s reincarnation

.
{quote}
"...someone could argue that the transition from one life-story to another..."

.
What if this life is the only one?
{unquote}
.
If so, then it is. Are you asking about the consequences of that?
.
{quote}
You're just assuming, within that statement, that reincarnation is an established fact.
{unquote}
.
Incorrect. I’m not assuming anything. I’m not asserting any assumptions. I’ve made that clear. In particular, I’ve repeatedly said that I have no proof that there’s reincarnation.
.
Then what did I say?:
.
I said that reincarnation is consistent with my metaphysics, and arguably even implied by it.
.
{quote}

.
"...But I remind you that the person doesn't perceive that transition. Before the time s/he in the foetal stage of the next life, s/he has already quite forgotten that there was a previous life."

.

{quote}
Maybe there is no transition.
{unquote]
.
I didn’t say that I had proof that there’s reincarnation.
.
{quote}
Maybe we are just born, grow up and old, and then die. Maybe this is all there is. I don't know that myself, I could be wrong, and reincarnation (and other forms of immortality) may be real, but until I have much more to help me to decide this issue one way or the other, I will remain uncommitted at this point regarding its possibility or likelihood. Absent the availability of any evidence, that is the sensible position to take.
{unquote}
.
I’ve been repeating throughout that I don’t claim that it’s certain that there’s reincarnation.
.
I’ve been repeating throughout that I don’t claim to have proof that there’s reincarnation.
.
Ok?
.
No one’s trying to make you commit to a position. In fact it’s better that you don’t, for the sake of a peacefully-concluded discussion.
.
Thank you for not committing to a position.
.
...But then there’s the fact that reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, the parsimonious metaphysics.
.
Michael829

Just like the whole universe being a simulation thing reincarnation also has two possible positions with only one being falsifiable, so for the same reason I don't believe that the universe is simulated I do not believe in reincarnation. It is impossible to conclusively disprove reincarnation but if it were real then it might be possible to prove depending on it's nature, therefore the position that it's not real is the most reasonable to have until there is evidence that it is real.

There are several recent posts in this thread that I want to and intend to reply to.
.
I’m replying to the shortest ones first. Today that includes my reply to MikeMan, below in this post.
.
Next, today, I’ll reply to Lintar’s two posts about ways of showing quotes. Then I’ll comment on Techstepgener8tion’s post.
.
It will probably be tomorrow (but maybe the day after tomorrow) that I reply to Lintar’s longer post. That’s because I want to do it justice, and give it the time that it requires. When I reply to a post, I thoroughly reply to (pretty much) everything that you say.
.
Here’s my reply to MikeMan:
.
{quote}
Just like the whole universe being a simulation thing reincarnation also has two possible positions with only one being falsifiable
{unquote}
.
The notion that this universe is someone’s computer-simulation doesn’t hold up metaphysically, so it isn’t a matter of whether it’s experimentally falsifiable.
.
Let me answer about that issue again:
.
This universe couldn’t be created by a computer-simulation, because you can’t create what already is.
.
This universe is one of infinitely-many hypothetical possibility-worlds.
.
As I’ve described in previous posts here, it’s a system of inter-referring if-then facts. Those facts, and that system of them, are already there.
.
The only thing that a computer simulation could create would be an opportunity for its programmer to observe this possibility-world.
.
As I said, you can’t create what’s already there.
.
But the simulation notion is interesting, because it shows that not everyone is a Materialist.
.
If you regard this universe as possibly a simulation, then that means that you aren’t a Materialist, and that you’re open to the notion of it being a hypothetical possibility-world (which is what it is).
.
For that reason, I regard the simulation notion as a positive direction. Though it can’t be true, it’s fairly close to the truth of the matter.
.
But, as for reincarnation, which of the two (Yes/No) positions do you think is (experientially?) falsifiable?
.
How would one of the positions be falsifiable? Maybe you mean that, if there’s reincarnation, then you’ll be reincarnated, and you’ll know it. But that depends on an assumption that people who are reincarnated know about at least their most recent past life. That’s an unsupported belief, and a doubtful one.
.
I suggest that, whether you’re reincarnated or not, you won’t know it.
.
Maybe you expect to be fully conscious in a traditional Christian eternal Heaven or Hell, and remember this discussion, and say, “Aha, so here I am in eternal Heaven (or Hell, as the case may be), and so that settles it: There isn’t reincarnation.”
.
You continued:
.
{quote}
, so for the same reason I don't believe that the universe is simulated I do not believe in reincarnation. It is impossible to conclusively disprove reincarnation but if it were real then it might be possible to prove depending on it's nature
{unquote}
.
That’s very doubtful.
.
{quote}
, therefore the position that it's not real is the most reasonable to have until there is evidence that it is real.
{unquote}
.
The unfalsifiability of both positions doesn’t say anything about which position is correct.
.
And if it were possible that one position or the other could eventually be falsified by your eventual experience, that, too, for now, wouldn’t say anything about which position is true.
.
Reincarnation is consistent with, and arguably implied by, the most parsimonious metaphysics.
.
In fact, I take the unusual and brazen position that the metaphysics that I propose is inevitable and indisputable.
.
But I don’t claim to have proof that there’s reincarnation.
.
Michael829

Linrar:

{quote}
Michael, to quote you use the [ symbol, type in the word 'quote' (but without the inverted commas), and then this sign ] , and without any spaces. You paste the text you want to quote after you have copied it, and then at the end of the quoted text you use once again this sign [, then this sign / and then the word 'quote' (again without the inverted commas), and then close off with this ], and once again without any spaces.
{unquote}

Thank you, Lintar.

In these forums, I've used that method a lot--the method that you described above.

I've also told why I prefer to use the {quote}...{unquote} method.

I prefer it because I like the larger text.

But yes, sometimes I might use the method that you describe. But not usually.

Michael829

{quote}
You can also do what I just did now - use the quote function that is just to the right top of the message, and which gives you something that (in my case) looks like this [quote="Lintar"] at the beginning of the text.
{unquote}

Of course. I've used that a lot here, as well.

Michael829

techstepgenr8tion:

You said:

{quote}

My take on all the chit-chat:

Having some type of eastern or western esoteric system to work through, whether it is Swami Vivikenanda's yoga books or something Daoist in flavor, or whether it's Franz Bardon's Initiation Into Hermetics, some similar Golden Dawn or Rosicrucian/Martinist set of studies, Kabbalistic Tarot study of some type, even just a super-lean system like William G Gray hints at in Magic Ritual Methods, does help you break plane a bit and start being able to rake in these experiences for yourself. Ya know, get some data-points to the theory otherwise you run the risk of mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.
{unquote}

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Most likely you don't either.

I reply only to sincere, serious and polite posts.

Michael829

That's fascinating, because I'm pretty sure there was nothing wrong with either my word choice or grammar in expressing what I was trying to express - ie. that speculation without experience to base it on like building philosophic card castles on sand, or really a stack of shifting 'should's (unless a person's really dead-set on keeping those stable by refusing to learn anything more once they build that card castle). If you read an insult somewhere in that paragraph I can't help you.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 07 Sep 2017, 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.