Can we truly define what is an abstraction?

  • Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Color
In summary: Litx, the entire tumor is treated not just the focal point.In summary, the Litx device uses red light to activate LS11 and create a "kill zone" around the LED array. This kills the tumor cells.
  • #1
Werg22
1,431
1
I just had a debate with my roommate who wouldn't agree that a color is an abstraction. I tried to explain to her that a property standing by itself is an abstraction, things that possesses this property can be concretions. She would say "color is a wavelength" to which I answered wavelengths provide sufficient and necessary conditions as to when we perceive a certain color, but the color red itself, in other words the property "redness", is an abstraction.

She finally ended up telling me that we have different definitions of abstraction and left at the debate at that. She told me that in my world "everything is an abstraction" which is obviously a gross oversimplification.

But I did tell her that, for example, what makes a table a table, in other words its defining properties, as seen by themselves, is an abstraction.

She didn't provide any convincing argument as to why I'm wrong, but if you can, by all means do.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Comparing wavelength colour to preceived things is somewhat futile because we know perceptions are quite flawed.

http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item35 [Broken]

Good ole optical illusions.

Or go Cheech and Chong and do a load of hallucinogens.

We know colour can be defined by wavelength and thusly this isn't moving really.

The virtual world that is created in our heads for each and every one of us is just that... virtual or abstraction. For many people they aren't colour blind; so in a way their abstraction-virtual world is correct.

I think VS Ramachandran would interest you well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
I agree with you, Werg. We percieve 650 nm EM waves as the color red, but 650 nm EM waves are not the same thing as red light. It's how our brain organizes and stores the information that gives us the sensation "red".

The same can be said about smells and tones. For instance, a dog stores smells in his brain like we store tones. They sense each aromatic as a separate tone and can tell what "tones" are occurring at the same time (the way a musician could tell the notes in a chord being played).
 
  • #4
Looking at the "basement" of the universe is quite funny. You get to understand how different the universe actually is compared to our perception of it. This Newtonean world of ours is like a hologram arising in a dead world of quantum fields. It's unreal how life and death bring about very high self-orgnisation of charges at the quantum level. It's funny when you know you are dead in the quantum world and alive at the same time in the Newtonean. So yes, everything is an abstraction, that's just how we perceive reality.
 
  • #5
Hi Werg,
You're correct. Those experiences we have (such as the experience of the color red) are generally called "qualia". There is no debate that such things as the 'redness' of blood is not a property of blood, but an experience of it. The only real debate is how such experiences can be created by the brain.
 
  • #7
Abstraction or not, the "experience" of red can save your life. And that sort of abstraction becomes rather useful in a concrete way. Red stop signs, red stop lights etc.. come in handy. Brake lights help too. All of these traffic tools are actually calibered to accommodate the colour blind among us. There is a specific amount of yellow in the red lights and pigments on the road to get their attention... and there is a specific amount of blue in the green traffic light to keep them in the loop.

As abstract as colour may seem, it has its practical uses. Similarly, the wave lengths of various coloured light also stimulate plant growth and reproduction. Various wavelengths of light act as stimulants that are specific to anatomical and tissue responses.

WILLIAM HENNING, N.D., O.D.

William Henning in his book, The Practice of Modern Optometry (Actino Laboratories, Inc. Chicago, 1939) , described two fundamental responses: contraction and expansion. Although all frequencies are stimuli, application of the blue-indigo-violet frequencies induce expansion; disinhibition; dilation; relaxation; decreased secretions; increased absorption; pleasure, relief, etc. Red-yellow-orange frequencies elicit contraction; stimulation; constriction; tension; spasm; increased secretions; increased metabolism; decreased absorption; and increased pain and discomfort.

http://www.syntonicphototherapy.com/online/page.cfm?Directory=42&SubPage=43 [Broken]

When combined with photosenstive chemicals, red light is extremely effective in causing apoptosis (cell death) in targeted tumours.

The Litx device contains a tiny array of LEDs at the end of a very narrow (only 1.2 mm wide) flexible coated micro-wire. Administering physicians insert the LED array into a tumor using a biopsy-like procedure, followed by intravenous injection of LS11. The device emits red light at a discrete frequency and intensity, for a fixed time period, to activate LS11 and create a “kill zone” around the LED array. Unlike radiation therapy, laser-based light-activated therapies, or thermal tissue destruction methods, Litx does not require expensive equipment.

http://www.lsoncology.com/litx_therapy [Broken]

Lastly I'll have to note that we have come to associate colours with certain conditions. If red liquid is spurting from your neck you know you're bleeding. If green liquid is sprouting from your nose, you know you should blow your nose. So, as abstract as you might think "colour" is, it remains a universally accepted measurement of a person's condition as well as having a universally recorded stimulation upon specific tissues, organs and organisms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
It's not just the red colour that's an abstraction. All the information in this thread, conveyed by contrasting colours and having implied/perceived meaning, is nothing but an abstraction created/deciphered by the mind.
 
  • #9
In fact, i'd be hard pressed to think of a single anything that's not an abstraction.
 
  • #10
Wave,
I agree.

To take this one step further though..

There are many ways that reality could 'spawn' in our consciousness.
We could for example be living organisms on planet Earth who have been given a brain and sensory system that is capable of being (self) aware, and aware of its surroundings, or we could have been given this reality, maybe our consciousness exists elsewhere, and we are projected into the universe so that we create the entire reality.
It could all be a dream..

I've pondered over why neuroscientists haven't gotten any closer to actually solving 'the hard problem', nor find out what qualia really means.
There's been so much discussion about subjective and objective, sensory perception, the brain and metaphysics even, yet nobody has come any closer to understanding how this works.

But to be honest, I hope we do not figure it out.. If we could one day create consciousness at will, it would imo ruin everything that is beautiful about this place.
Slightly off topic, but this topic is both mysterious and saddening at the same time.
 
  • #11
WaveJumper said:
In fact, i'd be hard pressed to think of a single anything that's not an abstraction.

well, allegedly, there's actually something out there that isn't an abstraction. The abstraction is a result of us sensing that thing (we call it reality, though some may confuse their abstraction of reality with the actual reality).
 
  • #12
Everything we know is an abstraction, so how can we prove reality is out there?
 
  • #13
octelcogopod said:
Everything we know is an abstraction, so how can we prove reality is out there?

Oh, I see, this is another... "everything is a holograph" thread.

Let's put it another way... an "abstraction" compared to what? If you can call "everything" an abstraction... you must be using a comparable as a contrasting state...

what is your comparable?
 
  • #14
Right but that doesn't prove reality is the comparable.. Reality could still be a dreamworld inside our heads, where the contrasting reality is outside of our senses reach.
 
  • #15
baywax said:
Oh, I see, this is another... "everything is a holograph" thread.

Let's put it another way... an "abstraction" compared to what? If you can call "everything" an abstraction... you must be using a comparable as a contrasting state...

what is your comparable?


Comparable to all the things that we know through our consciousness from our everyday Newtonian world.
 
  • #16
octelcogopod said:
Right but that doesn't prove reality is the comparable.. Reality could still be a dreamworld inside our heads, where the contrasting reality is outside of our senses reach.
While technically, it may be true, it's a useless point of view since nothing can be gained from it.
 
  • #17
WaveJumper said:
In fact, i'd be hard pressed to think of a single anything that's not an abstraction.

But there needs to be a hiearchy of abstraction. At the very bottom, we would find the abstraction "object", color, shape, distance would be a little higher.

But this brings an interesting point. Smell for example is a sensory experience. The word in itself, "smell", is an abstraction, maybe the best evidence to that is that we are capable of making smells defining properties of objects (for example, I could say a banana is that which smells thus, and I could identify more than one object fitting the description). Of course, smells are hardly defining properties of objects in an age where we can artificially reproduce them, but you get the point. Now some animals scavenge for food. It's important for these animals to be able to identify their food, and often they do so using their sense of smell. So even at the animal level, we find evidence of abstraction.
 
  • #18
octelcogopod said:
Right but that doesn't prove reality is the comparable.. Reality could still be a dreamworld inside our heads, where the contrasting reality is outside of our senses reach.

This doesn't answer the question I've asked...

How is it that we can assign a word like "abstract" to colour or any other condition without using a universal comparison that isn't "abstract"?

We have brains and we base our assumptions on the interpretations our brains make of nature. In fact we assume nature is "nature" based on what we are able to decipher with these brains.

There is no other way to do otherwise. We build computers to do some interpretation for us but it is inevitably our brains that process that information.

So, are there some "things" in nature that are more "abstract" than others, thus providing benchmarks for a reality of "less abstract" phenomena...?
 
  • #19
Pythagorean said:
While technically, it may be true, it's a useless point of view since nothing can be gained from it.
Wrong; it is an extraordinarily useful point of view. For example, it serves to soundly refute many naïve philosophical positions.
 
  • #20
One more point to consider... the concept of "abstraction" is probably the only real abstraction our brain will be able to identify edit... as an abstraction).
 
Last edited:
  • #21
baywax said:
So, are there some "things" in nature that are more "abstract" than others, thus providing benchmarks for a reality of "less abstract" phenomena...?


I'd say no, but in our classical realm of existence, all "things" are abstractions created by the mind, and made possible through our "coarse" sensory apparatus. It's a twisted picture(perception) of an otherwise cold, dead and bleak quantum reality. It's hard to say how we are able to ascribe so much meaning to dumb quantum fields interactions.
 
  • #22
Why shouldn't there be things that are more abstract than others? Like I said in my previous post, the concept of "object" is less abstract than the concept of "color".
 
  • #23
Werg22 said:
Why shouldn't there be things that are more abstract than others? Like I said in my previous post, the concept of "object" is less abstract than the concept of "color".


In what way is an object less abstract than colour? I could get the point you were trying to make in your previous post. It'd be useful if you could tell us how you define "abstraction" to avoid confusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
WaveJumper said:
I'd say no, but in our classical realm of existence, all "things" are abstractions created by the mind, and made possible through our "coarse" sensory apparatus.

"Course" compared to what?

It's a twisted picture(perception)
In your opinion.

an otherwise cold, dead and bleak quantum reality. It's hard to say how we are able to ascribe so much meaning to dumb quantum fields interactions.

Now you're bringing up the quantum state which we are only able to observe because we are in the state of the macrocosm. Are you using quantum reality as a comparable?

Your illusion and abstraction is that quantum reality is dead and bleak. How have you arrived at this conclusion (or is it an abstraction)?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
WaveJumper said:
In what way is an object less abstract than colour? I could get the point you were trying to make in your previous post. It'd be useful if you could tell us how you define "abstraction" to avoid confusion.

Maybe I'm wrong to say that "object" is less abstract than color. One could live in a reality where all he sees is a uniform "sheet" with no identifiable parts. If that so called "sheet" changed colors in cyclic manner, then we could still abstract the concept of color, without the need of the concept of object.

But that's speaking objectively. For humans at least, who live in a particular reality, I think we learn to differentiate between objects before colors, and so abstraction builds up in a pyramidal scheme.
 
  • #26
baywax said:
"Course" compared to what?

Coarse enough to allow us to "see" only the necessary portion of the EMR spectrum so as to avoid seeing "daylight" when the sun is not shining. Coarse enough so that we don't see molecules and atoms. If we did, we wouldn't know where one object's atoms end and where the atoms of air take over.



baywax said:
Now you're bringing up the quantum state which we are only able to observe because we are in the state of the macrocosm. Are you using quantum reality as a comparable?


Yes, the quantum reality is the true real nature of the universe. Our human sensory perception of it is incomplete and twisted so as to create the rather coherent picture we have of the universe, but fundamentally it's just a universe of quantum energy fields.


baywax said:
Your illusion and abstraction is that quantum reality is dead and bleak. How have you arrived at this conclusion (or is it an abstraction)?


I have no reason to believe elementary particles have a mind of their own or that they are somehow alive. Everything that's "alive" is alive at our realm of existence, not in the quantum world. Quantum mechanically you are a collection of "dead" 14 billion years old atoms. This collection of atoms that you are, comes alive at a different realm/level, the upper macro level where we reside. One day after 90-100 years, your death will not bring death to the atoms that comprised you, that's just how things go in nature.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
WaveJumper said:
Coarse enough to allow us to "see" only the necessary portion of the EMR spectrum so as to avoid seeing "daylight" when the sun is not shining. Coarse enough so that we don't see molecules and atoms. If we did, we wouldn't know where one object's atoms end and where the atoms of air take over.

Compared to what? Is there some other way to experience these things?
Yes, the quantum reality is the true real nature of the universe. Our human sensory perception of it is incomplete and twisted so as to create the rather coherent picture we have of the universe, but fundamentally it's just a universe of quantum energy fields.

Now for some reason, you know that quantum reality is the "true real nature of the universe"... when physicists have always maintained that the microcosm and macrocosm are separate states and incomparable.
I have no reason to believe elementary particles have a mind of their own or that they are somehow alive. Everything that's "alive" is alive at our realm of existence, not in the quantum world.

As I've said, the two states, micro and macrocosms are not comparable and do not offer material for analogies of each other. As far as metaphors go... they are truly abstract in nature...:smile:

Quantum mechanically you are a collection of "dead" 14 billion years old atoms.

That isn't a quantum reality. Its just a macrocosmic reality.
 
  • #28
WaveJumper said:
Yes, the quantum reality is the true real nature of the universe. Our human sensory perception of it is incomplete and twisted so as to create the rather coherent picture we have of the universe, but fundamentally it's just a universe of quantum energy fields.

I find this statement ambiguous. We can only examine the quantum world with the same eye we see our macro-reality. We apply abstractions we draw from our reality to the quantum world; we speak of particles as objects, movement, collision, etc. In other words, we are already supposing a certain reality and real concepts a priori.
 
  • #29
Hi werg. Calling color an “abstraction” is not as far as I have ever read, a term of the art. That is, I believe what you mean by “abstraction” is the commonly accepted view that color is a phenomenal property of the mind. As http://books.google.com/books?id=0f...hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result"points out:
It seems reasonable to say that together, the psychological and the phenomenal exhaust the mental. That is, every mental property is either a phenomenal property, a psychological property, or some combination of the two. … There is no third kind of manifest explanandum, and the first two sources of evidence – experience and behavior – provide no reason to believe in any third kind of nonphenomenal, nonfunctional properties (with perhaps a minor exception for relational properties, discussed shortly).

So by that, Chalmers points out that phenomenal properties are such things as the experience of pain or color. In contrast, psychological properties are behavioral or emperically measurable. When you say: “Maybe I'm wrong to say that "object" is less abstract than color.” You should probably reword that to say that “Maybe I’m wrong to say that an “object” is less of a phenomenal property of the mind than is color.” Is that what you mean? If so, you are not wrong. You should state that objects (and wavelengths of light) are most certainly not phenomenal properties, but that color is. Color is not a property of the wavelength of light, it is a phenomena which you experience when your brain has a certain input from the light receptors in your eyes. The wavelength of light and the shape of an object on the other hand, are independent of any experience one has of it such as the color red. The color red is not a property of light, it is a phenomena produced by the brain. The experience of 'red' is independant of the wavelength of light. We could experience 'green' instead, and we might go through life calling it red (this is called inverted qualia) because there is no way to determine that one person's 'red' isn't another person's 'green'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
This is not exactly what I mean by abstraction. There is no doubt that the perception of red is something the mind is responsible for. Any sensory experience is ultimately created by the mind for that matter. You could take a not-so-intelligent animal and, assuming it can perceive different colors, show it a red flag every time you are going to feed it. That animal could very well anticipate to be fed even when you show it a flag of a different color. That animal hasn't abstracted "red" and as such doesn't differentiate one flag from the other. Yet, your discourse applies perfectly to the mind of that animal. Some abstractions are built in or become part of our nature, some aren't. We don't need to think to recognize that a red flag is different from a blue one, but the animal question "would".

I don't see evidence as to why an object is less of a phenomenal property than color. You could very well come up with scenarios in which you and someone else have reversed perceptions of two different kind of objects.
 
  • #31
baywax said:
This doesn't answer the question I've asked...

How is it that we can assign a word like "abstract" to colour or any other condition without using a universal comparison that isn't "abstract"?

We have brains and we base our assumptions on the interpretations our brains make of nature. In fact we assume nature is "nature" based on what we are able to decipher with these brains.

There is no other way to do otherwise. We build computers to do some interpretation for us but it is inevitably our brains that process that information.

So, are there some "things" in nature that are more "abstract" than others, thus providing benchmarks for a reality of "less abstract" phenomena...?

In theory if our consciousness had been projected into a dreamworld, that consciousness would have built a reality that IT found 'concrete' (namely what it perceives), and since it already had abstraction capability before the world was even created, a separation between the concrete abstractions and the mental abstractions happen all inside one big abstraction.
The comparable is in fact just an illusion of the mind..

But that's bordering on silly even. I would have to say I do not believe this to be the case, but the point is the mind could in theory create both the concrete and the abstract, even when everything is abstract.. It's all how the mind defines it.

Of course, all these problems will be gone if we could one day create consciousness ourselves, and we had a complete understanding of ourselves, but that doesn't seem to happen anytime soon.
 
  • #32
octelcogopod said:
In theory if our consciousness had been projected into a dreamworld, that consciousness would have built a reality that IT found 'concrete' (namely what it perceives), and since it already had abstraction capability before the world was even created, a separation between the concrete abstractions and the mental abstractions happen all inside one big abstraction.
The comparable is in fact just an illusion of the mind..

But that's bordering on silly even. I would have to say I do not believe this to be the case, but the point is the mind could in theory create both the concrete and the abstract, even when everything is abstract.. It's all how the mind defines it.

Of course, all these problems will be gone if we could one day create consciousness ourselves, and we had a complete understanding of ourselves, but that doesn't seem to happen anytime soon.

Cool. But humans would not have survived 3 million years without building concrete abstractions out of the sensory data collected by their cognitive processes. That's why we trust what we perceive so much. It might be a mistake in certain cases... such as drinking sand that once was the mirage of water, etc...
 
  • #33
Q_Goest said:
Hi werg. Calling color an “abstraction” is not as far as I have ever read, a term of the art. That is, I believe what you mean by “abstraction” is the commonly accepted view that color is a phenomenal property of the mind. As http://books.google.com/books?id=0f...hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result"points out: So by that, Chalmers points out that phenomenal properties are such things as the experience of pain or color. In contrast, psychological properties are behavioral or emperically measurable. When you say: “Maybe I'm wrong to say that "object" is less abstract than color.” You should probably reword that to say that “Maybe I’m wrong to say that an “object” is less of a phenomenal property of the mind than is color.” Is that what you mean? If so, you are not wrong. You should state that objects (and wavelengths of light) are most certainly not phenomenal properties, but that color is. Color is not a property of the wavelength of light, it is a phenomena which you experience when your brain has a certain input from the light receptors in your eyes. The wavelength of light and the shape of an object on the other hand, are independent of any experience one has of it such as the color red. The color red is not a property of light, it is a phenomena produced by the brain. The experience of 'red' is independant of the wavelength of light. We could experience 'green' instead, and we might go through life calling it red (this is called inverted qualia) because there is no way to determine that one person's 'red' isn't another person's 'green'.

Because there has been no statistical data collected regarding the empirical measurements of the psychological effects of colour (specific wavelengths of light) on the brain does not mean there are none to collect.

Because specific wavelengths of light (which 97 percent of humans will label the same 'colour') do have (and have been recorded to have had) a physiological effect on plants, animals and photosensitive chemicals it becomes obvious to me that specific wavelengths of light are in no way exclusively abstracted or cognitively constructed by our brains and not nature.

And there is one more point to the discussion about abstraction... the very concept... the very "qualia" that is "abstract" is actually a very concrete and measurable phenomenon. That's because it only takes place when a specific combination of neurons fire in a human brain. How much more concrete can you get? Abstraction is sullied by the very fact that it, as a phenomenon, is a concrete/material state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
I have to agree with werg's roommate. This seems like an issue of semantics. Or, not really semantics, but it's an arbitrary aspect of how you choose to apply the notions of concreteness and abstractness. I would expect that when she said that everything in your world is an abstraction, what she really meant is that your approach to the discussion could be used to designate anything as an abstraction.

It's like, on one occasion I was having a discussion with someone and they were making an argument framed around the notion that a knife is an object and sharpness is merely a property of the knife - in essence that for an object to be a knife is a more fundamental aspect of its existence than for it to be sharp. My counterargument was that you could just as well say that you've got a sharp object with the property of knifeness.

So are the common aspects between the phenomena that produce an experience of redness the abstraction, and the other aspects like wavelength the more concrete ones, or is the thing that is common amongst everything - which we're designating "redness" whatever might produce that experience - more concrete and the dissimilar aspects more abstract? Meh.

You could try to say that redness is only in the experience, and hence be trying to advance the notion that red things aren't red when no one is looking, but that does seem like semantics to me - like you'd be intentionally misunderstanding your interlocutor to gird your own position in the discussion.
 
  • #35
CaptainQuasar said:
You could try to say that redness is only in the experience, and hence be trying to advance the notion that red things aren't red when no one is looking, but that does seem like semantics to me - like you'd be intentionally misunderstanding your interlocutor to gird your own position in the discussion.

Knifeness :rofl:

I'd agree except for one thing... when no one is looking, the wave length of light that is redness is acting to initiate flowering in plants, changing chemical properties and so on.

One would have to say light is an abstraction to say colour is an abstraction because in the absence of light, colour is at best, ill defined.

I once worked with a scenic artist who at one time worked for the first shows on CBC television. He told me about the difficulties involved in painting a set for black and white TV. For the most part he spent his time mixing colours in a bathroom with the lights out. In this sense he had to work, abstractly, backwards from colour to black and white. The black and white television most certainly offered an abstraction of colour in the form of various grays.
 
<h2>1. What is an abstraction in science?</h2><p>An abstraction in science refers to the process of simplifying complex systems or ideas by focusing on the most essential and relevant aspects. It involves breaking down a concept into its fundamental components in order to better understand it and make it more manageable.</p><h2>2. Why is abstraction important in scientific research?</h2><p>Abstraction allows scientists to make sense of complex phenomena and systems by reducing them to their most essential elements. This helps in understanding and predicting behavior, as well as in the development of new theories and technologies.</p><h2>3. Can we truly define what is an abstraction?</h2><p>While there is no single agreed-upon definition of abstraction, it generally refers to the process of simplifying complex systems or ideas. However, the specific definition and application of abstraction may vary depending on the field of science and the context in which it is used.</p><h2>4. How do scientists use abstraction in their work?</h2><p>Scientists use abstraction in various ways, such as in creating models to represent complex systems, in developing theories and hypotheses, and in designing experiments to test these theories. It is also used in data analysis and visualization to identify patterns and trends.</p><h2>5. Are there any limitations to abstraction in science?</h2><p>While abstraction is a valuable tool in scientific research, it also has its limitations. It may oversimplify complex systems, leading to inaccurate conclusions. Additionally, different levels of abstraction may yield different results, making it important for scientists to carefully consider the level of abstraction they use in their work.</p>

1. What is an abstraction in science?

An abstraction in science refers to the process of simplifying complex systems or ideas by focusing on the most essential and relevant aspects. It involves breaking down a concept into its fundamental components in order to better understand it and make it more manageable.

2. Why is abstraction important in scientific research?

Abstraction allows scientists to make sense of complex phenomena and systems by reducing them to their most essential elements. This helps in understanding and predicting behavior, as well as in the development of new theories and technologies.

3. Can we truly define what is an abstraction?

While there is no single agreed-upon definition of abstraction, it generally refers to the process of simplifying complex systems or ideas. However, the specific definition and application of abstraction may vary depending on the field of science and the context in which it is used.

4. How do scientists use abstraction in their work?

Scientists use abstraction in various ways, such as in creating models to represent complex systems, in developing theories and hypotheses, and in designing experiments to test these theories. It is also used in data analysis and visualization to identify patterns and trends.

5. Are there any limitations to abstraction in science?

While abstraction is a valuable tool in scientific research, it also has its limitations. It may oversimplify complex systems, leading to inaccurate conclusions. Additionally, different levels of abstraction may yield different results, making it important for scientists to carefully consider the level of abstraction they use in their work.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
939
  • Classical Physics
Replies
21
Views
870
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
780
Back
Top