Preparation [Was: Casimir Effect and Time-Energy]

127 views
Skip to first unread message

John Clark

unread,
May 9, 2025, 8:03:56 AM5/9/25
to 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:58 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> that doesn't mean you can't measure them both precisely

>> But thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle you can't predict what that measurement will be, and even if you repeat conditions exactly you will not get the same measurements for momentum and position (or energy and time) if you perform the experiment again.

> Yes, exactly.  But my point is that the fact that you can measure both precisely for the same particle is commonly denied.  The problem in is that the HUP applies to an ideal measurement, one that leaves the system having the measured value, in other words a preparation.

In physics experiments "preparation" means making sure a system is in one and only one quantum state. The big question is what was the state of the system before it was prepared? Many Worlds says it was in every state that is not forbidden by Schrodinger's Equation. Copenhagen says I am not allowed to ask that question. But I ask it anyway.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ina



 

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 9, 2025, 9:09:34 AM5/9/25
to Everything List
Questions are states of consciousness. They dont do what you imagine them to do.

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 9, 2025, 4:10:09 PM5/9/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
That's a funny way of putting MWI.  When there's a measurement of a variable A then the system is in an eigenstate of A, say Ao.  Other eigenstates of A, say Ai, are postulated to obtain in other worlds.  But in this world, where we've measured and observed Ao, we can measure again and again get Ao (that's why it's a "preparation").  But even though the Ai are still solutions of Schroedinger's equation, their amplitudes are all zero.  So ask away.  Are there multiple worlds with zero probabilities?

Brent

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ina



 
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3de6aFBNBQHxBzObrgPaE6mNfb_gy1j_971KAi9yGCPw%40mail.gmail.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 9, 2025, 6:07:29 PM5/9/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 4:10 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are there multiple worlds with zero probabilities?

I can't answer that question until you answer a question of my own. Zero probability of what? And if your answer is "of being observed" then my next question is "being observed by who?"

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
\0o  


 



Brent Meeker

unread,
May 9, 2025, 9:24:29 PM5/9/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 5/9/2025 3:06 PM, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 4:10 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are there multiple worlds with zero probabilities?

I can't answer that question until you answer a question of my own. Zero probability of what? And if your answer is "of being observed" then my next question is "being observed by who?"
No, if you measure a variable A in a world it was just measure to have the eigenvalue Ao, then MWI says you are in a world with A=Ao with probability 1.0  Yet you wrote that "Many Worlds says it was in every state that is not forbidden by Schrodinger's Equation."  The system is not forbidden by Schrodinger's equation to be in other states Ai; it is a contingent fact that it happened, in this world, to land in state Ao the first time it was measured.  So it has probability zero of being a world where A=Ai.  This has nothing to do with being observed or by whom unless you think consciousness is necessary for measurement.

Brent

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
\0o  


 



--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 10, 2025, 3:22:59 AM5/10/25
to Everything List
Not only consciousness is necessary for measurement, but consciousness is all there is. Oh, my God!, when will these monkeys learn ?

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
May 10, 2025, 4:00:02 AM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Never because there is no monkeys...

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4622e048-f9e3-4930-9807-f417a86fe526n%40googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 10, 2025, 8:02:40 AM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Are there multiple worlds with zero probabilities?
 
>> I can't answer that question until you answer a question of my own. Zero probability of what? And if your answer is "of being observed" then my next question is "being observed by who?"
 
> No

No? Neither of the two questions can be answered by a simple yes or no. 

> if you measure a variable A in a world it was just measure to have the eigenvalue Ao, then MWI says you are in a world with A=Ao with probability 1.0  Yet you wrote that "Many Worlds says it was in every state that is not forbidden by Schrodinger's Equation."  The system is not forbidden by Schrodinger's equation to be in other states Ai; it is a contingent fact that it happened, in this world, to land in state Ao the first time it was measured.  So it has probability zero of being a world where A=Ai. 

The source of the massive confusion as seen in the above lies, as always, with the misuse of the personal pronoun "you", which is completely ambiguous in this context. Personal pronouns should never be used in thought experiments on this topic, the lack of them may result in a clunky sounding sentence, it would certainly result in very bad poetry, but at least the sentences would make sense.

Brent Meeker forgets that when Brent Meeker is performing an experiment with an electron if Many Worlds is correct then it is not just the electron that will be in every quantum state that is not forbidden by the laws of quantum mechanics, exactly the same thing could be said about Brent Meeker who is observing and measuring the electron.
 
> This has nothing to do with being observed or by whom

You demand I tell you what the probability is, so I believe it is entirely within my rights to ask "what is the probability of what?" If asked for the probability that Brent Meeker will observe a photon of unknown polarization make it through a polarizing filter I would say 100%, and if asked for the probability that Brent Meeker will observe a photon of unknown polarization NOT make it through a polarizing filter I would also say 100%. But if asked about what "you" would see I would be unable to give a precise answer, I could only say there is a 50-50 chance. 

This lack of precision has nothing to do with the nature of the universe, it has to do with the ambiguity inherent in the personal pronoun "you" that was used in the question.  In routine everyday use this ambiguity causes no problems, but it produces havoc when discussing the Many Worlds idea, Star Trek style transporters, uploading, and in general anything involving mind duplication because they are "you" duplicating machines.

> unless you think consciousness is necessary for measurement.

In general consciousness is not involved, Many Worlds says the universe splits whenever there is a change, no matter how small, and consciousness has nothing to do with it. However consciousness is necessary if Mr. You is doing the experiment, and in your hypothetical he was. It makes no sense to say consciousness is not involved when the question asked was to predict what "you" will consciously observe after performing a quantum mechanical experiment.


 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 


4bk

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 10, 2025, 3:15:20 PM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 5/10/2025 5:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Are there multiple worlds with zero probabilities?
 
>> I can't answer that question until you answer a question of my own. Zero probability of what?
Obviously a zero probablity of having measured a value Ai =/= Ao.
And if your answer is "of being observed" then my next question is "being observed by who?"
 
> No

No? Neither of the two questions can be answered by a simple yes or no. 

> if you measure a variable A in a world it was just measure to have the eigenvalue Ao, then MWI says you are in a world with A=Ao with probability 1.0  Yet you wrote that "Many Worlds says it was in every state that is not forbidden by Schrodinger's Equation."  The system is not forbidden by Schrodinger's equation to be in other states Ai; it is a contingent fact that it happened, in this world, to land in state Ao the first time it was measured.  So it has probability zero of being a world where A=Ai. 

The source of the massive confusion as seen in the above lies, as always, with the misuse of the personal pronoun "you",

John K Clark is just obfuscating.  Paraphrase the same thought as "If a variable A is measured in..."

Brent

John Clark

unread,
May 10, 2025, 3:30:58 PM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 3:15 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John K Clark is just obfuscating.  Paraphrase the same thought as "If a variable A is measured in..."

What a variable is measured in is not relevant, who is doing the measuring is. And in the context of a Many Worlds discussion "Brent Meeker will measure A" is NOT a paraphrase of "you will measure A" because the first statement makes sense but the second statement is gibberish.
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
itc


--

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 10, 2025, 4:14:00 PM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 5/10/2025 12:30 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 3:15 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John K Clark is just obfuscating.  Paraphrase the same thought as "If a variable A is measured in..."

What a variable is measured in is not relevant, who is doing the measuring is. And in the context of a Many Worlds discussion "Brent Meeker will measure A" is NOT a paraphrase of "you will measure A" because the first statement makes sense but the second statement is gibberish.
Why do you think it matters who makes the measurement?  That's a red herring.  I think you're just dodging the problem that successive measurements of the same variable.  Results in all but one eigenvalue having zero probability in the MWI, in spite of them being valid solutions of Schroedinger's equation.

Brent
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
itc




On 5/10/2025 5:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Are there multiple worlds with zero probabilities?
 
>> I can't answer that question until you answer a question of my own. Zero probability of what?
Obviously a zero probablity of having measured a value Ai =/= Ao.
And if your answer is "of being observed" then my next question is "being observed by who?"
 
> No

No? Neither of the two questions can be answered by a simple yes or no. 

> if you measure a variable A in a world it was just measure to have the eigenvalue Ao, then MWI says you are in a world with A=Ao with probability 1.0  Yet you wrote that "Many Worlds says it was in every state that is not forbidden by Schrodinger's Equation."  The system is not forbidden by Schrodinger's equation to be in other states Ai; it is a contingent fact that it happened, in this world, to land in state Ao the first time it was measured.  So it has probability zero of being a world where A=Ai. 

The source of the massive confusion as seen in the above lies, as always, with the misuse of the personal pronoun "you",

John K Clark is just obfuscating.  Paraphrase the same thought as "If a variable A is measured in..."

Brent
--
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 10, 2025, 4:41:04 PM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 4:14 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do you think it matters who makes the measurement? 

Because the question asked is what Many Worlds predicts the guy will see when the guy makes a measurement. So who is the guy? Is the question "What will Brent Meeker see?" or is the question "What will you see?" The two sentences are not even close to being equivalent because the topic is about Many Worlds, so the first statement is a meaningful question but the second is not a question or a statement, it's nothing but a string of words with a question mark at the end.

  > Results in all but one eigenvalue having zero probability in the MWI,

I ask again, a zero probability of exactly what?  
 
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
nv,


spudb...@aol.com

unread,
May 10, 2025, 4:57:35 PM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 10, 2025, 5:39:17 PM5/10/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Of worlds with values of A other than Ao.  Try to put a little effort into understanding, John.

Brent

John Clark

unread,
May 11, 2025, 7:20:56 AM5/11/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 5:39 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

  >>> Results in all but one eigenvalue having zero probability in the MWI,

>>I ask again, a zero probability of exactly what? 

> Of worlds with values of A other than Ao.  Try to put a little effort into understanding, John.

This is getting silly. If Many Worlds is correct then there is NEVER a time or a place where the amplitude of the quantum wave collapses to exactly 1 and is zero everywhere else, it's the very thing that makes it different from every other quantum theory. And neither Many Worlds nor any other theory can answer a question if the question makes no sense.
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

skj
 

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 11, 2025, 4:42:32 PM5/11/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 5/11/2025 4:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 5:39 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

  >>> Results in all but one eigenvalue having zero probability in the MWI,

>>I ask again, a zero probability of exactly what? 

> Of worlds with values of A other than Ao.  Try to put a little effort into understanding, John.

This is getting silly. If Many Worlds is correct then there is NEVER a time or a place where the amplitude of the quantum wave collapses to exactly 1 and is zero everywhere else,
That's what Schroedinger's equation says if a measurement of A produces Ao and then A is immediately measured again.  There is zero probability of getting anything but Ao.  Which is what started this argument when you said MWI says every outcome consistent the Schroedinger's equation always occurs in a measurement.  That's what I was objecting to and I gave an example.  Which you now arbitrarily assert cannot happen...if MWI is correct.  I agree; MWI is just another kludge to plug a gap in our understanding the relation of the quasi-classical world and the quantum world.

Brent

it's the very thing that makes it different from every other quantum theory. And neither Many Worlds nor any other theory can answer a question if the question makes no sense.
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

skj
 
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 12, 2025, 6:31:26 AM5/12/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 4:42 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

If Many Worlds is correct then there is NEVER a time or a place where the amplitude of the quantum wave collapses to exactly 1 and is zero everywhere else.

> That's what Schroedinger's equation says if a measurement of A produces Ao and then A is immediately measured again.

There is absolutely nothing in Schroedinger's equation that says the amplitude of the universal quantum wave collapses to exactly 1 and is zero everywhere else when a measurement is made, there isn't even anything in it that explains what a "measurement" is. The rule you mention was added on by the Copenhagen people, so according to them there are two separate rules of physics, one set of the laws of physics is for things that are not being observed, and the other set of the laws of physics are for things that are being observed. Many Worlds advocates say there is only one set of the laws of physics.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis


yg1


Brent Meeker

unread,
May 12, 2025, 4:47:12 PM5/12/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
And apparently that there is no such thing as a measurement leaving a system in an eigenstate of an observable.  This is will come as a surprise to many experimentalist.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis


yg1


--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 13, 2025, 6:31:40 AM5/13/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 4:47 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There is absolutely nothing in Schroedinger's equation that says the amplitude of the universal quantum wave collapses to exactly 1 and is zero everywhere else when a measurement is made, there isn't even anything in it that explains what a "measurement" is. The rule you mention was added on by the Copenhagen people, so according to them there are two separate rules of physics, one set of the laws of physics is for things that are not being observed, and the other set of the laws of physics are for things that are being observed. Many Worlds advocates say there is only one set of the laws of physics. 

> And apparently that there is no such thing as a measurement leaving a system in an eigenstate of an observable.  This is will come as a surprise to many experimentalist.

Your confusion arises, as always, because you are assuming that only the electron must obey Schrodinger's Equation, not the lab equipment needed to measure the electron, and most importantly not the experimentalist who is looking at the measuring device; they still follow classical physics. That clumsy poorly defined assumption was just tacked on by the Copenhagen people because they were frightened by the logical consequence of not doing so. That's why Many Worlds is barebone no-nonsense Quantum Mechanics that contains everything that is necessary and not one bit more. As Richard Feynman said “nature isn't classical, dammit".

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ia6

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 13, 2025, 3:36:14 PM5/13/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I made no such assumption.  You're just making up objections.  Are you asserting that a measurement does not leave a system in an eigenstate of the variable measured?

Brent

John Clark

unread,
May 14, 2025, 7:09:44 AM5/14/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 3:36 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> you are assuming that only the electron must obey Schrodinger's Equation, not the lab equipment needed to measure the electron, and most importantly not the experimentalist who is looking at the measuring device; they still follow classical physics. That clumsy poorly defined assumption was just tacked on by the Copenhagen people because they were frightened by the logical consequence of not doing so. That's why Many Worlds is barebone no-nonsense Quantum Mechanics that contains everything that is necessary and not one bit more. As Richard Feynman said “nature isn't classical, dammit".
 
> I made no such assumption.  You're just making up objections.  Are you asserting that a measurement does not leave a system in an eigenstate of the variable measured?

You are not the only Brent Meeker doing that exact same measurement! If Many Worlds is correct then there are an astronomical  number (or an infinite number) of yous in a world where the observable variable A has just been measured. In one of them experimental results tell "you"  there is a 100% probability that "you" are in the world where the value of variable A is X is exactly equal to 1. But there are many many more Brent Meekers in which their experimentation tells them that there is a 100% probability that variable A has a very different value than X. And all those Brent Meekers believe in Quantum Mechanics just as strongly as "you" do.

> This has nothing to do with being observed or by whom

It most certainly does IF the question asked is "what will an experimenter observe?" And that was the fundamental question Brent Meeker asked.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
3gv




 

scerir

unread,
May 14, 2025, 7:27:13 AM5/14/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, John Clark

Difficult, for me, to imagine how a measurement is performed in Alpha Centauri (according to MWI)

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 14, 2025, 7:33:23 AM5/14/25
to scerir, everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 7:27 AM scerir <sce...@libero.it> wrote:

> Difficult, for me, to imagine how a measurement is performed in Alpha Centauri (according to MWI)

 
The same way it works on earth because Quantum Mechanics works everywhere. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

swe


 

 
You are not the only Brent Meeker doing that exact same measurement! If Many Worlds is correct then there are an astronomical  number (or an infinite number) of yous in a world where the observable variable A has just been measured. In one of them experimental results tell "you"  there is a 100% probability that "you" are in the world where the value of variable A is X is exactly equal to 1. But there are many many more Brent Meekers in which their experimentation tells them that there is a 100% probability that variable A has a very different value than X. And all those Brent Meekers believe in Quantum Mechanics just as strongly as "you" do.
 
> This has nothing to do with being observed or by whom
 
It most certainly does IF the question asked is "what will an experimenter observe?" And that was the fundamental question Brent Meeker asked.  
 
  
3gv
 
 
 
 
        

scerir

unread,
May 14, 2025, 7:47:42 AM5/14/25
to John Clark, everyth...@googlegroups.com

Ok, but are observers in Alpha Centauri? And ... are there collapses (reductions of wave packets)?

John Clark

unread,
May 14, 2025, 2:06:27 PM5/14/25
to scerir, everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 7:47 AM scerir <sce...@libero.it> wrote:

> Ok, but are observers in Alpha Centauri?

In some universe yes because that would not violate the laws of physics, but almost certainly not in this one. And in some universe I became the first American Pope just a few days ago, but again not this one. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
eii

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 14, 2025, 9:13:32 PM5/14/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
No, I referred to measurements and results, with no mention of observers.  You're thrashing straw men.  You're inserting the word "you". 

And the correctness of MWI is what is in question, so you're begging the question by assuming it's true.  You seem to have missed the point of the argument which is based on successive measures of the same variable.  The second measurement has only one possible outcome contrary to you assertion that all values consistent with Schroedinger's equation must obtain; thereby neglecting the role of state preparation.

Brent

John Clark

unread,
May 15, 2025, 7:33:32 AM5/15/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 9:13 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the correctness of MWI is what is in question, so you're begging the question by assuming it's true. 

No. I do not claim I can prove that MWI is correct, but I can prove that your claim that MWI produces contradictory predictions is wrong, and to do that I need to start by assuming that MWI is correct and seeing if that assumption produces any contradictions. It doesn't. I admit that doesn't prove MWI is correct, but it doesn't prove MWI is incorrect either.
 
> which is based on successive measures of the same variable.  The second measurement has only one possible outcome contrary to you assertion that all values consistent with Schroedinger's equation must obtain

It's true that if a unmeasured photon hits a polarizer set to the randomly selected angle X Schrodinger's equation says there is a 50% chance it will make it through the polarizer, and if it does and then it hits a second polarizer set to angle X plus 90° there is a 0% chance the photon will make it through that filter. It's also true that if you remove the first polariser but leave the second one unchanged and then repeat the experiment Schrodinger's equation predicts the photon will now have a 50% chance of making it through that polarizer set to angle X plus 90°, not a 0% chance as in the first time the experiment was done. But I'll be damned if I can figure out why that fact is supposed to prove that the MWI must be wrong.

 > You seem to have missed the point of the argument

Well, I've certainly missed the point of your argument. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mpa

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 15, 2025, 7:01:30 PM5/15/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
My argument is with your statement that MWI means that all results consistent with Schroedinger's equation will occur, not with MWI.  Some results have zero probability, which means they don't occur.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mpa
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
May 16, 2025, 7:14:29 AM5/16/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 7:01 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My argument is with your statement that MWI means that all results consistent with Schroedinger's equation will occur, not with MWI.  Some results have zero probability, which means they don't occur.

I agree that Schrodinger's Wave Equation says the amplitude of the quantum wave of a photon after it's gone through 2 polarizing filters set at perpendicular angles is zero. Which means it has zero probability. Which means it doesn't occur. I disagree that fact contradicts my statement that all results consistent with Schroedinger's Equation will occur. According to Many Worlds there is NO WORLD where the photon makes it through both those filters, and there is NO WORLD where an electron decays into a proton because both those things would violate Schrodinger's Wave Equation and the fundamental laws of Quantum Mechanics.
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8g3
  

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
May 16, 2025, 10:57:52 AM5/16/25
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
The latests analysis indicates that a sequential multiverse is the order of the day, or that there are indeed other verses parallel to us, in fact. 




--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages