On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in > the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the > outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have an out, > stated in another post. They form part of your imagination. Not good enough > from my pov. AG >
I should also add that the MWI sheds no light, AFAICT, on the measurement problem; that is, why we get the outcome we get. As far as collapse contradicting SR via the result of Bell experiments, I am not sure about that conclusion. If FTL occurs, it may be the case that in some frames Alice's measurement occurs first, in other frames Bob's measurement occurs first. I tend to think this muddies the waters on the issue of FLT transmission and contradictions with relativity. AG > > On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 2:23:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 05 Sep 2016, at 19:31, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:08:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 04 Sep 2016, at 20:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay >>> grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. >>> >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> >>> >>> As for the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a >>> slot machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what >>> happened to the other thousands of outcomes I didn't get, I'd think that >>> would be a crazy question. >>> >>> >>> I mainly agree, because there is no unanimity on which counterfactual or >>> conditional non standard logic to use. >>> >> >> *Isn't it really much simpler? Just because something *could* exist, like >> those thousands of other outcomes of the slot machine, doesn't mean they >> *must* exist. The MWI insists all outcomes MUST exist. I see no necessity >> for that. AG * >> >> >> You need it to get the interference between the terms of the wave. I >> agree with Deutsch: QM is the science of multiple interfering histories. >> The collapse is an addition to avoid that multiplication/differentiation >> consequence. >> >> >> >> >> >> But that's the question some physicists ask when they are confronted with >>> the non-linearity of collapse in the Copenhagen Interpretation. >>> >>> >>> I tend to disagree here. The quantum situation is different because with >>> quantum mechanics, different outcomes can interfere and thus have some >>> physical underpinning which is hard to avoid, especially without assuming >>> the collapse of the wave. >>> >> >> *How can you disagree? Many prominent physicists -- Greene, Deutsch, >> Carroll -- when confronted with the non-linearity of collapse, believe the >> MWI avoids or solves this problem. AG* >> >> >> ? >> I agree with them. MWI entails no-collapse, and the evolution is purely >> linear. Just a "rotation" in the Hilbert space. >> >> >> >>> Accepting non linearity >>> >>> >>> There are work by Steinberg and Plaga which shows that if the QM wave is >>> slightly non linear, then we get the WW with a revenge: interactions >>> becomes possible in between terms of the wave. This makes wrong special >>> relativity, but also thermodynamics, etc. >>> >> >> *The wf before measurement is linear insofar as it satisfies a linear DE, >> and relativity is well tested. So I don't see any issue here. AG * >> >> >> OK, but then there is no collapse. We agree, then, only the collapse >> leads to non-linearity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> So I guess you mean that there is a (non linear) collapse, and that, >>> strictly speaking the SWR is false. >>> >> >> SWR = ? >> >> *Why does a non-linear collapse falsify SR? AG* >> >> >> >> By Bell's violation, if there is a collapse, it affects elements which >> are space-separated. Einstein explained this already at the Solvay congress. >> >> >> >> >> >>> You introduce a duality between observer and observed, or between macro >>> and micro-physics. And, you assume non-mechanism in cognitive science. >>> >> >> H*ow can we test our models without the duality of observer and >> observed? You demand the impossible. * >> >> >> Read the book by Hans Primas on the foundation of chemistery. It explains >> well why Everett restores monism in the philosophy of mind (but he missed >> this happens directly with Mechanism). >> >> >> >> >> *What "non mechanism" have I assumed? QM just gives us probabilities. >> It's not a causal theory. AG* >> >> >> With the collapse. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> That is lot of things for which we don't have evidence. Cosmologists >>> applies QM on very big object, like black holes, if not the entire >>> universe, and people trying to justify a physical collapse get a lot of >>> problem, like non-locality, to cite the one Einstein disliked the most, and >>> I share a bit that opinion. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> and actual time irreversibility (not FAPP) is an easier concept to >>> accept than the real or fictional other worlds necessary to support the >>> MWI. >>> >>> >>> Well, with mechanism, in all case (with or without QM) we get the many >>> histories/dreams/computations, and they exist like natural numbers. We >>> don't have to take the "worlds" as primitive ontological reality. I tend to >>> not really believe in *any* world. Those belongs to the imagination of the >>> relative universal numbers, whose proof of existence can already be done in >>> elementary arithmetic. >>> >> >> *Physics is about constructing and testing models of physical reality, >> not about dreams. * >> >> >> Assuming there is a physical reality per se, but with Mechanism, the >> physical reality is "only" a persistent statisticl illusion emerging from >> all computational histories. >> >> >> >> >> *You can call the MWI a dream, but for me it's a nightmare. LOL. AG * >> >>> >>> BTW, the time irreversibility is not FAPP since the collapsed wf, when >>> inserted back into the SWE, recovers only itself exactly at an earlier >>> time, but not the original wf which collapsed. AG >>> >>> >>> Yes, OK. If there is such a collapse, but I don't see evidence. >>> >> >> *If you measure a system repeatedly, you get the same measurement. That's >> the evidence for collapse; * >> >> >> >> Not at all. That is what Everett explains in all details. You don't need >> the collapse to explain, using only the SWE that in each branch the >> observer feel like there has been a collapse, using only a notion similar >> to the First Person Indeterminacy that we have anyway in arithmetic. >> >> >> >> *that the system remains in the same eigenstate after measurement, not in >> the original superposition. AG* >> >> >> Yes, with a collapse which is not explained, nor even well defined, and >> which contradicts the SWE. >> Computationalism and QM without collapse leads to immaterial monism, >> which is nice as we don't have any evidence for primary matter. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I think it is human coquetry (grin). Nature loves to do things in many >>> exemplars, and elementary arithmetic loves that to. Personal uniqueness is >>> an illusion (provably so in the mechanist theory of mind). The evidences >>> are more on the side of reversibility, and unitary evolution. But of course >>> that might be false, and is still an open problem in the computationalist >>> theory. But there too, we already got some evidence for linearity and a >>> core symmetrical physical structure. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:16:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>>>> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>> In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> >>>> to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or >>>>>>>>> (-,-') >>>>>>>>> >>>> worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything >>>>>>>>> >>>> significant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> >>> necessarily there in QM+collapse. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> > linearity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean >>>>>>>>> absolutely nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not >>>>>>>> understand or disagree with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of >>>>>>>>> total nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other >>>>>>>> posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> and then adding to the prejudices. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame >>>>>>>> of the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that >>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>> any collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> SWE ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> global third person picture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p >>>>>>>> sense in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in >>>>>>>> arithmetic) the >>>>>>>> indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic >>>>>>>> (first >>>>>>>> person or first person plural). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality >>>>>>>>> violation >>>>>>>>> > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> > Bohmian particules. >>>>>>>>> > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that >>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are >>>>>>>>> real >>>>>>>>> > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell >>>>>>>>> non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over >>>>>>>>> thinking that non-locality means FTL action. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the >>>>>>>> no-signalling theorem puts this issue >>>>>>>> to rest. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark >>>>>>> above, he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of >>>>>>> information, and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your >>>>>>> claim >>>>>>> (or any claim of FTL transmission) is falsified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guess what, you were completely wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was the one who denies the FTL. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *My text may have confused you. I thought you went to the MWI to deny >>>>>> FTL in this one-world. That's what I meant. But Bruce seems to deny FTL >>>>>> in >>>>>> this world, by saying the phenomenon is just a property of the wf, and >>>>>> in >>>>>> his appeal to the no-signalling theorem; as if to say, if you can't send >>>>>> information, there can't be FTL. But here "send information" in the >>>>>> context >>>>>> of no-signalling theorem just means you can't send a message of choice. >>>>>> AG * >>>>>> >>>>>> *What does FPI stand for? TIA, AG* >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The article I posted denies that the apparent contradiction between >>>>>>> relativity and non locality can be resolved simply by appealing to the >>>>>>> non-signalling theorem, which Bruce seems to assert. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was the one asserting that with the MWI, even the Bell's violation >>>>>>> does not force FTL, even without signalling possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My point, shared by others in the thread, was that with the MWI >>>>>>> restores both 3p determinacy, and 3p locality. The point of Clark and >>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>> is that even with the MWI, Bell's inequality violation proves that >>>>>>> nature >>>>>>> is 3p non local, and that action at a distance exists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I posted >>>>>>> is irrelevant to the discussion. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was Bruce who claims that Bell's inequality violation shows that >>>>>>> FTL exists, even without possible signalling. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Then why does he tell you to "get over it", it being FTL? AG* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Maybe he means that FTL exists in this world, so why resort to the >>>>> MWI to deny it. But then why does he bring up the no-signalling theorem? >>>>> AG * >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Hope I didn't offend any true believers in the MWI, * >>>> >>>> >>>> MWI is a theory. I have often explain, as a logician, that MWI is not >>>> an interpretation but a different theory than Copenhagen. MWI = >>>> wave-function postulate. Copenhagen-QM = wave function postulate + >>>> collapse >>>> postulate. Of course both have some problem of interpretation (like all >>>> theories). I tend to not accept the notion of "physical world", and >>>> working >>>> in arithmetic I use only the notion of computation. Indeed, my result is >>>> that both the collapse of the wave and the wave itself are universal >>>> number's First Person phenomenologies, when we assume a form of Mechanist >>>> Hypothesis in cognitive science. Mechanism makes physicalism wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *but in extensive discussions about this on another MB, none of the >>>> true believers could give a coherent account of these other worlds; for >>>> example, where the energy comes from, * >>>> >>>> >>>> Energy is a "one-world" notion, but anyway, I don't believe in worlds, >>>> at least not until someone explains what they mean. For me, it is a >>>> convenient fiction. With Mechanism, a world is an extrapolation made by >>>> numbers sharing sheaves of computation verifying some measure weight, and >>>> such measure weighting must be explained through the logic of >>>> self-reference. You might take a look at my papers, like this one: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html >>>> >>>> Or this one, if you can access it: >>>> >>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2013.03.014 >>>> >>>> *and whether an observer in this world is reproduced in other worlds, >>>> and if so, with what memories. The MWI seems like a desperate attempt to >>>> avoid non-locality and/or non-linearity of QM. AG * >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, it avois the non linearity of the collapse, and its dualism. OK. >>>> But the "other worlds" are only a consequence of the contagion of the >>>> superposition of the particle (say) to the observer. If you look at a cat >>>> in the dead+alive state, you end yourself looking at a dead cat + looking >>>> at a alive cat. The given brain states are orthogonal and do not interact, >>>> but can still interfere statistically. This list is for people believing >>>> that "everything" is a simpler conceptual notion than any particular >>>> thing, >>>> and so welcome both the MWI in quantum physics, and the >>>> "many-computations" >>>> in arithmetic, that we get from Mechanism. I predicted the *appearance* of >>>> "many-worlds" before knowing about quantum physics measurement problem. >>>> >>>> About Bruce's points, maybe you should ask Bruce, as the cited post is >>>> a bit out of the context of the thread. >>>> >>>> You asked in another post what is the FPI. >>>> It is an acronym for First Person Indeterminacy, and it is the >>>> subjective indeterminacy that you get in the (classical) self-duplication. >>>> Again, look at the paper sane04 cited above, where this is made precise >>>> and >>>> explained. The FPI is the building brick of the argument showing that >>>> Mechanism and Physicalism are incompatible, and that physics is >>>> conceptually reduced to arithmetic when we assume mechanism. I show that >>>> this leads to testable consequences, and some are tested retrospectively >>>> with QM. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that FTL (fast than light influence which not necessarily >>>>>>> exploitable for transmission of information) still exist, and I agree >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it is logically possible, but people believing in that have the >>>>>>> obligation >>>>>>> to give evidence, and my point is that in the MWI, Bell's violation is >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> more an evidence, as Bell supposes definite outcomes in definite >>>>>>> realties, >>>>>>> which makes no sense in the MWI, nor in computationalism more generally. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I tend to agree that Bell's results assume one world. AG * >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Good. I think some people disagree with this on this list, but I will >>>> let them to defend their point again, or not. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question was specifically about some possible remnant of >>>>>>>> physical action at a distance in the MWI. We both know that the non >>>>>>>> signaling does not put light on this. Genuine physical action at a >>>>>>>> distance >>>>>>>> obviously exist in the QM-with-collapse, by Bell's inequality >>>>>>>> violation, >>>>>>>> but Bell's argument does not show action at a distance( in any unique >>>>>>>> branch if that exist), in the MWI. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What we have is the contagion of superposition, and they never go >>>>>>>> quicker than interaction, that is at sub-speed of light. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that is why we can define, or represent the "world" by set of >>>>>>>> space-time events closed for interaction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting (but out of topic indeed). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> That adds nothing, indeed. That shows only that the paradoxes >>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>> >>> only from the axioms some have added to fit their >>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>> >>> prejudices. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> So you add axioms to suit your philosophical prejudices just as >>>>>>>>> >> others do -- how does that make your position any better than >>>>>>>>> that of >>>>>>>>> >> others? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > No. I subtract axioms. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Bohr's axioms: SWE + COLLAPSE + number (add,mult) (+ >>>>>>>>> > unintelligible theory of mind) >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Everett's axioms SWE + Number (add,mult). (+ mechanist >>>>>>>>> theory of >>>>>>>>> > mind) >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Your servitor's axioms: Number(add,mult). (+ mechanist >>>>>>>>> theory >>>>>>>>> > of mind) >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > And I don't pretend that is true, only that digital mechanism >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> > this necessary and testable (modulo the usual "malin génies"). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All the above sets of axioms lead to non-local theories. You may >>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>> just to subtract axioms, but that is as much choosing your axioms >>>>>>>>> as any >>>>>>>>> other procedure. And you have yet to show that you get the physics >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> this world out of your theory --and demonstrate the necessary >>>>>>>>> stability >>>>>>>>> of the physics. Just wishing evil genies away does not actually >>>>>>>>> banish them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>> the Google Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/SJdbZNPRALg/unsubscribe >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout</ >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout> >> >> -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
