Brian Greene: "The Past is as Real as the Present

[SteveDB]

I saw the post title, and had to respond.
I suppose the reality of the past is based entirely on whether or not one was here to witness their version of it. I.e., were you born today, or sometime in a past where you could witness the events of that past unfold.
I for one have been around for over 45 years so I've witnessed my share of a past. Then there are those who were young adults in the 1960's and say that if you remember them, you weren't really there. But we know that was based entirely on their experience with LSD, and other mind-altering devices of the day. I for one was a young adult in the late 70's, and for some reason unknown to me, actually remember those days. So, to use a phrase of my elders, perhaps I really wasn't there. However, there were at least two years missing during my high school years, so based on the statements made above, perhaps I really was there.
Granted, LSD was more strychnine than psychadelic by then, so who knows.
Then, we must remember Steven King's movie in the mid 90's. Little robotic monsters will eat all caught up too deeply in a past that has already been lived. And lastly, we cannot forget the admonitions of one who said-- those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I for one think memories are there to keep us from killing ourselves, or doing stupid things that could forever alter our ability to comprehend what lies before us in the future.
Imaging having to re-discover Einstein's work every day that comes along. No thanks.

 

[Les Sleeth]

all you're really doing is calling time by another name.

I don't think so. The discussion has been what is it that the word "time" represents. The debate between Tournesol and myself at least has been primarily about what time actually is, and I don't see how our different perspectives can be generalized by a mere "another name." If you can explain how we are both defining time the same way with different terms, then I would like to hear that.

 

[nameless]

were you born today, or sometime in a past where you could witness the events of that past unfold.

Am I witnessing the events of the 'past' unfold right now? The 'future'? I am witnessing 'right Now'. All I can ever witness is 'right NOW'! One can close one's eyes and imagine, through thought (memory) all kinds of imaginary past and future, but all I have ever found 'round about me' is RIGHT NOW! Even your strolls down memory lane, even in both directions, is still an event that is happening in the NOW!
You might be interested to read your way through the entire thread to find varying perspectives on the matter at hand, many addressing your 'perspective' both pro and con...

 

[Tournesol]

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of contradictory states.

If you are still referring to McTaggart’s analysis,

I am referring to the argument that the statements
a) Edward VII is alive
and
b) Edward VII is dead
are contradictory , whereas
c) Edward VII was alive in 1900
and
d) Edward VII is dead today,
the point being that the addition of a time-index, which distinguishes c) and d), is essentially
the intorduction of time-as-a-dimension (above an beyond mere change).

I see it as merely a language trick to create an apparent logical conundrum where there isn’t any. What was his justification for assuming all states must exist simultaneously in time in the first place?

You tell me: that is the assumption you end up with if you do not admit time-as-an-index. If you hold that change occurs,
but do not hold that there are different "times" (analogous to places) for different states (such as being alive and being
dead) to occur in, then they must occur "on top of each other" -- thereby incurring contradiction, as in a) and b).

As critics have pointed out, all you have to do is say the past state was, the present state is, and the future state will be, and then there are no contradictory states.

That just *is* the indexing strategy, expressed in a naive form. It is for you to explain how the
past differs from the present, etc, without constituting some sort of series -- ie a dimension.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

What contradiction can you describe that can be empirically confirmed?

The empirical evidence is the evidence for change; the contradiction comes when you don't allow
that there are different times -- time-as-a-dimesion -- for otherwise contradictory descriptions
of change to be indexed against.

No one is saying people are exempt from anything. Their physical bodies are doing exactly what the rest of the universe is doing: changing.

And to make sense of change we need time-as-a-dimension.

In my last post below I will try another approach to explain why there is no actual or implied contradiction.

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order to explain them ?

Yes we can see space, but the dimensions are actually matter, not space

What a puzzling comment. Do you mean that the apparently empty gaps between objects are filled with matter ? Do you mean empty space has no dimensional qualities ? Do you mean space is relational, not absolute (ie, cannot exist in the absence of matter) ?

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

Well, I am saying you have to be able to either observe something directly, or an effect of something. We can see at least traces of atoms, and we can see the effects of fields. Time, on the other hand, has no traces and no observable effects.

The "effect" of time is that change can occur without contradiction.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuition in that ?

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the Platonic view of time, that like space, we need a dimension for change to happen within. All we need is space and something changing.

You have not explained how you avoid contradiction without positing a dimension. Saying "it is all we need" does not address the problem.

Solipsism it is, then!

I can't see how solipsism applies here. If you say that because I claim time is a psychological sense, then projection is the proper term for what I'm describing. And if you say that because I insist on the epistemology of observation of traces/effects, that is the basis of empiricism, and so you'd have to also call science solipsism.

The point is the difference between a "shallow" empricism , that amounts to solipsism, and a "deep" one that posits not-directly-observable entities in order to make sense of what can be seen.

Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

But I have analyzed it. You are convinced time is a dimension, and I suspect you aren’t going to accept any other view of time. I too am convinced of my view, although I believe I would change my mind if someone could demonstrate a time dimension to me. To date, I have never experienced a time dimension in any way, shape or form except in the mind of myself and others.

That would be shallow empiricism.

So let me try another way of explaining time that jives with something I have experienced.

Assume there is only one true absolute; let’s call it existence. I will define existence as “neutral” (i.e., not matter and not mind), assume that existence cannot not exist, and that there cannot be a beginning or end of existence; so neither time nor boundaries are properties of “pure” existence (i.e., existence is eternal and infinite).

If existence is the most basic state, then all that we see is some form and/or condition of existence. In other words, there is one pure existence, but a great many forms and conditions of existence. Although we can see how forms or conditions may be relative to other forms or conditions, ultimately every form and condition is relative to the absoluteness of pure existence.

For physical forms of existence, time is a condition. A physical form has a beginning where it arises from pure existence, and then so many changes before it loses its form and becomes pure existence again.

Physical forms also have the condition of dimensions. A dimension is extension along a unique plane, and of course within the infinite, eternal realm of pure existence. In this model, space doesn’t have dimensions, physical objects do. Space is a finite condition of existence (itself infinite) that allows extension.

Well space does have dimension, whether it says so in your model or not. The motion of a body in space can be described using sets of
not more than 3 numbers. Hence, space is 3 dimensional.

Is time a dimension? A physical form of existence is extended in at least three planes of D x W x H. A physical form also can be described metaphorically as extended in terms of duration, but it isn’t at all like the original meaning of a dimension. A virtual particle has very little “extension” compared to proton because it pops in and out of existence faster. Time becomes associated with dimensions in relativity where, say, acceleration affects physical extension as well as duration. But all that really happens is the form’s rate of change, change that will eventually end in pure existence, is slower than a non-accelerating frame of reference.

OK. So when *you* say dimension , you mean *spatial* dimension, and when you say *spatial* dimension you mean "extension of a physical body"
just as Descartes did. Well, of course time-as-a-dimension is only going to be *analogous* to a spatial dimension. But that is an
artifical problem. Some water has passed under the bridge since Descarte's day; we now have the concept of a spatio-temporal
dimension available. Are you thinking inside a box ? Or is a True Scotsman argument -- "it isn't a dimension unless it's a
spatial dimension".

(And the Cartesian concept of a dimension still doesn't work; a point particle moving in space needs to be described
by 3-vevtors. The dimesnionality is there without the extension).

So time as a dimension is metaphorical. If we want to say time is a dimension, then we have to redefine dimension and come up with a new term for physical extension. Overall time is the condition of temporariness of physical forms relative to the absoluteness of pure existence. The march toward pure existence is entropic change, so 'time' is both how many entropic changes a physical form has left, and the rate of those changes.

time-as-a-dimension is what allows cnahge to occur without incurring contradiction.

Where's the time dimension except in our mind?

Not in our mind, and not in a spatial location. To insist that an answer has to fall into either of those
categories is to beg the question.

Consciousness is conditioned by entropic change just like we are conditioned by light, sound, taste, gravity . . . Constant, unrelenting entropic change is part of our conscious experience from the moment we are born, long before we are able to contemplate it intellectually. So we are quite unconsciously conditioned to accept temporariness as part, or a “dimension,” of the world in which we live. That is why I think time (as a dimension) is projected from the sense of our own limited duration as we watch ourselves and everything else change right out of sight.

I have already given you the real reason for time-as-a-dimension. Since you have in no way refuted it, there is no
need for a psychological explanation to account for belief in time.

 

[Tournesol]

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of contradictory states.

If you are still referring to McTaggart’s analysis,

I am referring to the argument that the statements
a) Edward VII is alive
and
b) Edward VII is dead
are contradictory , whereas
c) Edward VII was alive in 1900
and
d) Edward VII is dead today,
the point being that the addition of a time-index, which distinguishes c) and d), is essentially
the intorduction of time-as-a-dimension (above an beyond mere change).

I see it as merely a language trick to create an apparent logical conundrum where there isn’t any. What was his justification for assuming all states must exist simultaneously in time in the first place?

You tell me: that is the assumption you end up with if you do not admit time-as-an-index. If you hold that change occurs,
but do not hold that there are different "times" (analogous to places) for different states (such as being alive and being
dead) to occur in, then they must occur "on top of each other" -- thereby incurring contradiction, as in a) and b).

As critics have pointed out, all you have to do is say the past state was, the present state is, and the future state will be, and then there are no contradictory states.

That just *is* the indexing strategy, expressed in a naive form. It is for you to explain how the
past differs from the present, etc, without constituting some sort of series -- ie a dimension.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

What contradiction can you describe that can be empirically confirmed?

The empirical evidence is the evidence for change; the contradiction comes when you don't allow
that there are different times -- time-as-a-dimesion -- for otherwise contradictory descriptions
of change to be indexed against.

No one is saying people are exempt from anything. Their physical bodies are doing exactly what the rest of the universe is doing: changing.

And to make sense of change we need time-as-a-dimension.

In my last post below I will try another approach to explain why there is no actual or implied contradiction.

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order to explain them ?

Yes we can see space, but the dimensions are actually matter, not space

What a puzzling comment. Do you mean that the apparently empty gaps between objects are filled with matter ? Do you mean empty space has no dimensional qualities ? Do you mean space is relational, not absolute (ie, cannot exist in the absence of matter) ?

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

Well, I am saying you have to be able to either observe something directly, or an effect of something. We can see at least traces of atoms, and we can see the effects of fields. Time, on the other hand, has no traces and no observable effects.

The "effect" of time is that change can occur without contradiction.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuition in that ?

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the Platonic view of time, that like space, we need a dimension for change to happen within. All we need is space and something changing.

You have not explained how you avoid contradiction without positing a dimension. Saying "it is all we need" does not address the problem.

Solipsism it is, then!

I can't see how solipsism applies here. If you say that because I claim time is a psychological sense, then projection is the proper term for what I'm describing. And if you say that because I insist on the epistemology of observation of traces/effects, that is the basis of empiricism, and so you'd have to also call science solipsism.

The point is the difference between a "shallow" empricism , that amounts to solipsism, and a "deep" one that posits not-directly-observable entities in order to make sense of what can be seen.

Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

But I have analyzed it. You are convinced time is a dimension, and I suspect you aren’t going to accept any other view of time. I too am convinced of my view, although I believe I would change my mind if someone could demonstrate a time dimension to me. To date, I have never experienced a time dimension in any way, shape or form except in the mind of myself and others.

That would be shallow empiricism.

So let me try another way of explaining time that jives with something I have experienced.

Assume there is only one true absolute; let’s call it existence. I will define existence as “neutral” (i.e., not matter and not mind), assume that existence cannot not exist, and that there cannot be a beginning or end of existence; so neither time nor boundaries are properties of “pure” existence (i.e., existence is eternal and infinite).

If existence is the most basic state, then all that we see is some form and/or condition of existence. In other words, there is one pure existence, but a great many forms and conditions of existence. Although we can see how forms or conditions may be relative to other forms or conditions, ultimately every form and condition is relative to the absoluteness of pure existence.

For physical forms of existence, time is a condition. A physical form has a beginning where it arises from pure existence, and then so many changes before it loses its form and becomes pure existence again.

Physical forms also have the condition of dimensions. A dimension is extension along a unique plane, and of course within the infinite, eternal realm of pure existence. In this model, space doesn’t have dimensions, physical objects do. Space is a finite condition of existence (itself infinite) that allows extension.

Well space does have dimension, whether it says so in your model or not. The motion of a body in space can be described using sets of
not more than 3 numbers. Hence, space is 3 dimensional.

Is time a dimension? A physical form of existence is extended in at least three planes of D x W x H. A physical form also can be described metaphorically as extended in terms of duration, but it isn’t at all like the original meaning of a dimension. A virtual particle has very little “extension” compared to proton because it pops in and out of existence faster. Time becomes associated with dimensions in relativity where, say, acceleration affects physical extension as well as duration. But all that really happens is the form’s rate of change, change that will eventually end in pure existence, is slower than a non-accelerating frame of reference.

OK. So when *you* say dimension , you mean *spatial* dimension, and when you say *spatial* dimension you mean "extension of a physical body"
just as Descartes did. Well, of course time-as-a-dimension is only going to be *analogous* to a spatial dimension. But that is an
artifical problem. Some water has passed under the bridge since Descarte's day; we now have the concept of a spatio-temporal
dimension available. Are you thinking inside a box ? Or is a True Scotsman argument -- "it isn't a dimension unless it's a
spatial dimension".

(And the Cartesian concept of a dimension still doesn't work; a point particle moving in space needs to be described
by 3-vevtors. The dimesnionality is there without the extension).

So time as a dimension is metaphorical. If we want to say time is a dimension, then we have to redefine dimension and come up with a new term for physical extension. Overall time is the condition of temporariness of physical forms relative to the absoluteness of pure existence. The march toward pure existence is entropic change, so 'time' is both how many entropic changes a physical form has left, and the rate of those changes.

time-as-a-dimension is what allows cnahge to occur without incurring contradiction.

Where's the time dimension except in our mind?

Not in our mind, and not in a spatial location. To insist that an answer has to fall into either of those
categories is to beg the question.

Consciousness is conditioned by entropic change just like we are conditioned by light, sound, taste, gravity . . . Constant, unrelenting entropic change is part of our conscious experience from the moment we are born, long before we are able to contemplate it intellectually. So we are quite unconsciously conditioned to accept temporariness as part, or a “dimension,” of the world in which we live. That is why I think time (as a dimension) is projected from the sense of our own limited duration as we watch ourselves and everything else change right out of sight.

I have already given you the real reason for time-as-a-dimension. Since you have in no way refuted it, there is no
need for a psychological explanation to account for belief in time.

 

[Psi 5]

When pressed for a definition regarding "the past", and whether or not it "does" exist, Brian Greene

http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/results2.pperl?authorid=11013

made this comment in an interview tonight.

~ I don't know if we can get there, but "the past is as real as the present"

Interesting, I thought.

Interesting but pure BS, there is only now. Only life has memory so the concept of the past or even time only exists in our minds. The inanimate universe knows nothing of past, present, future or even movement because it has no memory. The human brain invented the concept of time because we can see movement and change. We recognize this because of the one faculty that distinguishes us from all other matter in the universe, we have memory so we know things move and change. Without memory you know no movement or change. The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics. A good example is music. Music can only be appreciated because of memory of previous notes and it is better appreciated after listening to the song several times because then you can remember coming notes as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting but pure BS, there is only now. Only life has memory so the concept of the past or even time only exists in our minds. The inanimate universe knows nothing of past, present, future or even movement because it has no memory. The human brain invented the concept of time because we can see movement and change. We recognize this because of the one faculty that distinguishes us from all other matter in the universe, we have memory so we know things move and change. Without memory you know no movement or change. The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics. A good example is music. Music can only be appreciated because of memory of previous notes and it is better appreciated after listening to the song several times because then you can remember coming notes as well.

Interesting. Are you a world class physicist like Greene?

 

[Psi 5]

Am I a world class physicist? The fact that you are asking means your implication is meaningless.

Do I need to be to know how memory works? Do I need to be to understand how I appreciate music? Do I need to be to know that there isn't a single bit of evidence that the universe exists elsewhere in all it's infinite past forms? Do I need to be to know that there isn't a single bit of evidence that disproves that now is all there is and that it's simultaneous throughout the universe? Do I need to be to know that physics doesn't know what time is and still argues about it? Can you disprove anything I said in my previous post?

 

[jimmie]

there is only now

I KNOW that you are right.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Am I a world class physicist? The fact that you are asking means your implication is meaningless.

It means that you are speaking from a limited frame of reference. Greene takes his opinion from the physical models used in today's physics. It is arrogant and incorrect to talk about his statement as if it was in opposition to mainstream physics.

 

[Psi 5]

It means that you are speaking from a limited frame of reference. Greene takes his opinion from the physical models used in today's physics. It is arrogant and incorrect to talk about his statement as if it was in opposition to mainstream physics.

You might as well say he takes his opinion from yesterdays models for all that means. Maybe I take mine from tomorrows since time is so fluid. Arrogant? Maybe, so what. Incorrect? My opinion opposes his, I don't care where he gets his. Mainstream just means that it isn't universally accepted and mainstream is often wrong. Just like string theory might be mainstream someday, it doesn't make it right. I'll come back and eat my words when it's proven that I can, until then I'll just chug along in the now knowing you and he are in the same one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You might as well say he takes his opinion from yesterdays models for all that means. Maybe I take mine from tomorrows since time is so fluid. Arrogant? Maybe, so what. Incorrect? My opinion opposes his, I don't care where he gets his.

You attacked the credibility of his statements and not whether or not his opinion is correct. His is an opinion based on the physics. Yours is almost certainly an opinion based on emotion.

The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics.

 

[nameless]

The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics..

The Metaphysists don't accept the mental fantasy of time any more than QM does. The equations still are symmetrical if you reversed (or eliminated) the time elements. It it just part of the dream so that our dream universe can exist. There is truly nothing ever been found but NOW! And a 'Planck NOW is 'timeless'.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You attacked the credibility of his statements and not whether or not his opinion is correct. His is an opinion based on the physics. Yours is almost certainly an opinion based on emotion.

Just a small point. The issue of time doesn't belong to the physicists. It has meaning to physics, so some physicists believing physicalness is all there is have have claimed time to be only physical. But time has been around a lot longer than physicists, and it belongs to all of us who care to contemplate it.

Maybe you'll tolerate an analogy. If someone creates a beautiful symphony in this universe, they must express it through physical means. There is math to it, there is physics to it, there is human physiology to it. A person might come along who only looks at the physical aspect of things and say "see, all physical." But is it? How does pure physicalness account for the creativity that organized those notes into a beautiful piece of music? Sure, there are theories how that might happened only physically, but they are all put forth by individuals already committed to a purely physical explanation for existence.

I think Psi 5 has a point to insist that he has a right to evaluate how the universe works without a physics degree. Afterall, who made physicists the gurus of truth? They might have the inside track to physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean they know everything.

 

[nameless]

It means that you are speaking from a limited frame of reference. Greene takes his opinion from the physical models used in today's physics. It is arrogant and incorrect to talk about his statement as if it was in opposition to mainstream physics.

Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and none aught to be taken for dogma. 'World class physicists' once taught that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the 'center of the universe', that gravity came from matter, and on and on...
Gather as much 'data' as possible and think for yourself. Your opinion is a 'valuable' as any celebrity's.. no matter how many 'groupies' (that can't think for themselves) agree (see Earth as center of universe.)

Argument from 'authority' and argument from 'numbers' (of 'believers') are both cognitive fallacy.

"A true seeker could not accept any teachings, not if he sincerely wished to find something. But he who found, could give his approval to every path, every goal; nothing separated him from all the other thousands who lived in eternity, who breathed the Divine."
-Herman Hesse in Siddhartha

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.

[Bokonon]

 

[Psi 5]

You attacked the credibility of his statements and not whether or not his opinion is correct. His is an opinion based on the physics. Yours is almost certainly an opinion based on emotion.

My opinion is based on a lifetime of contemplation on the subject, not emotion. I don't have a physics degree but I do have a couple of engineering degree's and I read a lot of science. I can talk to anyone about almost any subject intelligently. I didn't arrive at my opinions either yesterday or out of thin air.

Physicists make the great error that everything can be described by an equation, it can't now nor will it ever. So to give someone more credence because he is a physicist postulating theories based on the flavor of the month currently popular in the physics world is TRULY arrogant. Especially when the subject is something that has absolutely no mathmatical model, theoretical or otherwise, to explain what it is. Discussing what time is is just as valid in the philosophical arena as it is in the physics arena.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An engineer with two degrees who doesn't understand the role of mathematics in physical models. Hmmmm.

 

[Psi 5]

An engineer with two degrees who doesn't understand the role of mathematics in physical models. Hmmmm.

A physicist who doesn't understand english, how did you get to be a mentor?
Just out of curiosity, which one of my statements did you twist the meaning of to come up with that? Feel free to quote this time. Also I would like to see a mathmatical model that explains what time is and shows how to access a past configuation of the universe, say around 1947, I'd like to know what really happened in Roswell.

 

[meL]

Posted - 2005 Oct 29 : 17:19:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see it while it last..ho ho ho
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=77232&page=4
Gaijin #46

and the others there!

boo hoo..my post were automatically deleted
from the physics thread...Time in QM
..very convenient for me :-)

They could at least just throw books at me(us)
and not delete.

They delete there but not the philosophy threads.


The creation, impermanence continues...
~~~

 

[meL]

What does that WARN monitor mean?

i am NOT vulgar. i talk about the what-is
in the physics thread.

The creation, impermanence continues...
~~~

 

[meL]

nevermind...the warn question...$$$ and fear

The forum where i have been for 2 years
has no ads, no money problems.

i will pay. ho ho ho

The creation, impermanence continues...
~~~

 

[meL]

A physicist who doesn't understand english, how did you get to be a mentor?
Just out of curiosity, which one of my statements did you twist the meaning of to come up with that? Feel free to quote this time. Also I would like to see a mathmatical model that explains what time is and shows how to access a past configuation of the universe, say around 1947, I'd like to know

what really happened in Roswell.

i worked with the USAF group that created
the Roswell event...a high altitude balloon crash.

aliens will not come here...what for??

we are too dangerous at this *time*.

 

[meL]

R.E.M

Out Of Time
:-O

THIS is the future...always

THIS is the end of time
AND
THIS is the end of time

dont faint
keep singing and dancing

THIS is heaven
There is no death

.

 

[meL]

P.S.

Sorry...

i forgot to give credit to JC, JK, UGK (there are others of course)
for my time, heaven and no death statements.

 

[meL]

i have no degree's.
i am not a thiest.

i am not an athiest.

i need to stop and see what happens *next.

 

[cronxeh]

meL.. you are one hyper kid http://carboninside.com/beaver.gif

 

[meL]

meL.. you are one hyper kid http://carboninside.com/beaver.gif

[/URL]
scorpio

p.s.
another on my fav list...thanks