Michael Shermer - Search for Meaning

[@GrandpaJeffrey]

Shermer knocks the ball right out of the park! Well done Michael.

[@Boogieplex]

Shermer’s last comment on comparing “rights” to “meaning” is SPOT ON. Just because nature doesn’t prescribe them, and they are of human construct, doesn’t give them any less importance.

[@veritas2022]

@The Best Western So the imposed rights derive from moral law and morality is derived from something that is self imposed or from a universal source/force that creates meaning or gives us the tool(s) to create meaning?

[@RiverGem]

This is the most important segment so far in this series. We cannot know for sure the ultimate truth of all things, so make this life as meaningful as you can. It will make you happier in this life, and in the next if there is one.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Why does meaning require transcendent origin or eternal existence? Meaning is a context dependent, language and concept based construct that refers to emotional values specific to the human experience. Kuhn’s position here is like saying unless love lasts beyond death and is a cosmic expression of soul mates recognizing one another from past lives, love doesn’t exist at all and is an empty concept...

[@HumAiClub]

Greetings, I hope you don't mind me giving my thoughts regarding one possible motivation of Mr. Kuhn. In my opinion, it's partially due to endurance of suffering. A human life that is full of love and laughter, in the end the value can be in the life experience itself. But consider a life of suffering or endurance of unhappiness or whatever. I think Mr. Kuhn's quest to find transcendent or external meaning would ultimately balance out everything in the end and make it all worth something even if it wasn't for the individual life at the time it was lived...

[@AlmostEthical]

You nailed it, Robert. "We give it meaning" is a rationalisation. Meaningful? Saving lives? To what end? There's too many people. Saving nature? It's doomed, sadly - by us. No, individually there is only a shallow meaning that relates to bonding, no different to the loyalty of monogamous birds. Form bonds ... reproduce ... rinse and repeat. The meaning comes from the "far, far future" - not from what we are but what we may become. Biology is brutal. Most heterotrophic organisms have to kill, maim or steal to survive and reproduce. The challenge is to overcome this limitation, and ultimately the problem of suffering. That requires the digitisation of consciousness. Only in the digital realm will human (post-human?) minds will be free of the body's tyranny and the limits of resources. But that is a very long way off and there are no guarantees that we'll get there, just as there's no guarantee that a child will grow to maturity.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Hey AlmostEthical... Your perceptions make a lot of sense. But what do you mean by "digitization of consciousness?" ( did I spell that correctly)? Sounds a bit like science fiction, don't it?

[@AlmostEthical]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 As I said, "the far, far future". Not any time soon, although our consciousness is already much more digitised than we notice. Ever more of ourselves is being expressed in the digital world. That process looks set to continue.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@AlmostEthical I am impressed by your statement "our consciousness is already much more digitized than we notice." That would be a shock to those who lived even 30 years ago!

[@user-hh2is9kg9j]

Interesting conversation but the title is misleading.

[@kaci6538]

I would suggest that when we assign meaning to something we naturally evolve past it to the next thing we assign a greater meaning to. Therefore it propels us into new experiences. An easier route may be to attach no meaning and allow experiences to just be experiences and we may open up to many more possible meanings. Wow I need a rest now. ☺️

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

So, as Life is Eternal, No one have created Life, Life cannot be created, Life is creator. Therefore there cant be any meaning with Life, but Life is a eternal Living Being, and the 'general-need', is to experience it self, realize it self, develop it self, which have to do with creation. So, there is a meaning of what we create, how we create and so on. but it is also so, that we have a meaning until we get a new, according the change of life and realities.

[@doraannekey5228]

What we THINK..... IS OUR TRUTH just don't push your truth on others and vise versa. Evolution is my truth and I enjoy everyday‼️🤗❤️

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Dora Anne Key “pushing yourself truth on others” --another definition for philosophy and open intellectual discussion....

[@xspotbox4400]

Evolution is meant for people who have kids.

[@Ascendlocal]

Never discussed but important to this topic, meaning and purpose are different. I can find a meaning for life. For instance, bringing (in part) my children into this world gives me meaning. Put the question of does my existence have a purpose. The answer is a resounding, No! Because purpose has to be imposed by an outside entity. That entity could have a purpose for me, us, that we could never know of what it constitutes, that is unless it comes to Earth and says, we created you to become slave labor once you finish evolving and reach a certain level of understanding technology. So, short of such an event, when humanity is finally gone, at some point in the near or farther future, so does all meaning, because it is or was, a subjective experience. Purpose, on the other hand, for our existence, never did exist. Can anyone say, existential nihilism?

[@jamessmith989]

I think that you are here to give God a voice.

[@Ascendlocal]

@@jamessmith989 perhaps and that might be really nice. Finally, a purpose! But as I said, it certainly would be nice if he'd tell us that himself, so that there would be no doubt. No need for a "faith" definition. This is the "event" we would need, but has never happened. And hearsay and books don't make it reality.

[@jamessmith989]

@@Ascendlocal He already has. People are just skeptical.

[@lizicadumitru9683]

Do you not know have a purpose as a father?

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Shermer states "It's the wrong question." I think that both the Cosmos has meaning and subjectively we impose "meanings" for the Big questions of life. The problem is, if meaning is completely subjective, all meanings will "evaporate."

[@frphxkaboom3008]

God gives you life to see what you can do with it.

[@ingenuity168]

Right now the meaning of life is to find out more about the universe and anything we don't know. That's meaningful.

[@deepashtray5605]

Too many individuals or groups believe there is a meaning to the physical universe and that they have a divine jurisdiction to impose that meaning on the rest of us.

[@HumAiClub]

@Michael Shermer How about the life of a cat or any other non-human animal? I'm wondering if it's possible for a non-human life to have meaning independent of human existence "in your opinion".

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Of course.

[@kidhiguera]

I dont think theres a meaning. What was the meaning of all the dinosaurs that died 65 million years ago? None, they just happend to evolve from singular cell organisms to enourmus reptiles, then one day a comet crash and they all died. No meaning there in my opinion.

[@kidhiguera]

I dont think theres a meaning. What was the meaning of all the dinosaurs that died 65 million years ago? None, they just happend to evolve from singular cell organisms to enourmus reptiles, then one day a comet crash and they all died. No meaning there in my opinion.

[@HumAiClub]

@@kidhiguera I have a feeling that the entire process of evolution from single cell organisms into complex creatures have meaning. I admit I have no idea how or why it would though - LOL, maybe that's why I subscribe to CTT - searching for answers....

[@kidhiguera]

HumAi Club yes, thats why I also watch these kind of videos. Very hard questions to answer.

[@irfanmehmud63]

"Do the strongest atheists also doubt once in a while?"

[@devekhande9204]

About what?

[@jordan_8329]

@@devekhande9204 their own doubts

[@jordan_8329]

@Stefano Portoghesi you again lol. I think and would hope that everyone has moments of doubt about even their most fundamental beliefs because it will either help them find ways to reinforce them, adjust them, or see new ways of looking at the world.

[@devekhande9204]

@@jordan_8329 always

[@devekhande9204]

@Stefano Portoghesi well put.

[@1thomson]

Here's the thing: if the universe made us, then it also made the meaning that we think _we_ made. There's no free will, boys and girls. We're just puppets carrying out the processes, including mental processes, compelled within us by the forces that also rule all the rest of the universe (and please, please, please don't throw "but quantum mechanics implies" at me. No, it doesn't). So, in a rather trivial sense, meaning is given to us by being created through us. So what? Of course, that last flippant remark isn't going to satisfy anyone, but it's really quite legitimate, I think. It's just that I've never heard anyone in this series of explorations actually answer it, or even raise it. I think Robert is sniffing all around it. But, he just doesn't seem to be able to quite get there. And, for all the woo-woo people out there, just ... no. OK? Sigh.

[@tomashull9805]

I hear you Robert about the meaninglessness of the attempts to put meaning into life IF that meaning can't be preserved... If consciousness (including our memories/experiences) is quantum, as it appears to be, and even Shermer is willing to accept with more evidence, then all of our meaning is stored; never destroyed, as per the conservation of quantum information... :-)

[@micronda]

The wave function of the universe is storing our meaning. It therefore has stored our ancestors meaning and our future descendants meaning. So It/He knows the meaning of everything.

[@tomashull9805]

@@micronda What's the wave function of the universe?

[@micronda]

The universe is made of fields. Waves travel in the fields. The waves materialise as particles when measured. The wave function of the universe is an amplitude for every possible combination of positions for all the particles in the universe.

[@tomashull9805]

@@micronda"... particles in quantum field theory are actually excitations of fields". Check out this video and let me know what you think... kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJ2ooKmtepaifqs

[@micronda]

​@@tomashull9805 Good video. My hypothesis says... The fields themselves don't have energy. They are spherical and wave-less within. They come together, into a holding space, interact and are excited at the center. The excitation creates a wave. EMR propagates like a pond wave and zero-point jiggers like an ocean wave. The excitation in the field, wave in the field, and energy in the field, are all the same thing. 'The wave function of the universe' is 'real' but DOES NOT 'exist'. When its waves, materialize as particles when measured, they are also 'real' but DO now 'exist'.

[@tomashull9805]

I'm really glad Richard Dawkins has come to his senses and accepted a possibility of a signature of the designer in DNA... Too bad Shermer can't see a designer behind the design. I guess it is in his best interests not to be able to see it...His paycheck depends no his not being able to infer it…

[@micronda]

Perhaps the 'meaning', is the sum of all the individuals meanings, past, present and future, as stored in 'The wave function of the universe'. It contains all possibilities and therefore all meanings. It/He would not have one meaning but many. Perhaps It/He has a universal meaning but that would be Its/His, NOT yours. We are part of Its/His meaning... and therefore all of us, you and I, are critical to Its/His understanding... and that makes us very important indeed... and NOT insignificant... and that goes for everyone and everything.

[@keramatebrahimi943]

Why don't just say "i do not know".

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

Because this isn't about knowing, this is about philosophy, its about what we think.

[@hemant05]

He Was unable to prove his point till the end, Fact!

[@manafro2714]

Even the kind of meaning that wasn't artificial/man-made but imposed on the Universe by an "outside force" would suffer the same flaw as the artificial one: with the end of the Universe there would be nothing to embrace it. So this is not a good argument against artificial meaning. Meaning can be embraced by living beings only, and as long as they live they have a chance to do so, and once they are dead it doesn't make a difference for them -- assuming no afterlife. If there is an afterlife, the "dead" could ask the same question about meaning at the moment they are conscious of their new state, but even then the answer would be the same as for the living: meaning must be made in the moment, that's all you have.

[@2010sunshine]

Wonderful! Michael Shermer knows what he's saying...he has very clear concept and brain.

[@thomasridley8675]

Since we may never understand the meaning of the universe. We have had too make your existence feel like it means something in the long run. Even if it may mean nothing at all in the long run. Our species entire existence will be just a tiny blip on the universal timeline. And the universe will not even notice we are gone.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Hey Thomas.... only the heart monitors will "notice we are gone."

[@thomasridley8675]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Very funny !!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@thomasridley8675 I hope I made you laugh. Sometimes we get too serious on this KZbin channel.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Im old, so not that funny. But i get the joke. 😆

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@thomasridley8675 Okay. I'm not that old but I often feel old. I dislike getting old.

[@vladimir0700]

I don’t know about the far, far future but the near, near future is extinction

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

The question of whether the universe has "meaning" is the wrong question. The more pertinent question is: what is the "purpose" of the universe? And looking at this from the perspective of a Berkeleyan form of Panentheism - a perspective that views the entire universe as being the living mind of God (or God's "spirit body," so to speak),... ...then it becomes clear that the purpose of the universe (via its material production of mind-creating bodies and brains) is to function as the ("womb-like") physiological means by which God (the ultimate SOUL of the universe) replicates himself by conceiving his very own progeny (the human soul) within himself. In other words, how much more meaningful and, especially, *"natural"* can the truth of reality be than that of the universe being God's womb wherein God is literally *"pregnant"* with us? And I am talking about a pregnancy that will culminate (through the process of physical death) in the delivery of our soul (mind/consciousness) into a higher context of reality. _______

[@micronda]

A clock has a purpose but meaning makes us tick ;)

[@daniel4647]

Haven't watched it yet, but this seems like an impossible question to answer. The further into the future we go the more difficult it becomes to predict and we can't accurately predict anything very far into the future. Like if I throw a ball at you you'll likely be able to predict where it'll go and be able to catch it. But if I throw it at the wall so it bounces once it becomes much harder to catch it. And the more times it bounces the more variables will have to be calculated and the less accurate the prediction will be. And that's just a bouncing ball, humans are complex life forms with many complex both natural and artificial systems that needs to be included, accurately predicting this with any amount of certainty is impossible. Watched it now. He say "the universe has no meaning" as a statement, but there is no way he can know that, just because he doesn't know it's meaning or if there is one is not the same as there isn't one, that's also something he just makes up like he does with his meaning. Secondly, heath death of the universe, the inevitable end of everything according to modern scientific theories, or maybe more accurately scientific mythology when it comes to things this theoretical, is totally dependent on linear time which quantum physics disproves. Just because we feel like it's moving linearly in one direction does not mean that's the case, for all we know it can be moving the other way and we're all experiencing it backwards. So from that perspective the universe is not dyeing, it's moving towards what we consider it's birth, the big bang. And nobody knows what came before that or what the big bang even is. Or it's moving both ways at the same time, and if that's the case then every moment is infinite. And in the time the universe has existed we've been able to observe it for a tiny fraction of that time, we can't really say for sure if the fundamental laws of physics are actually constant, they could be oscillating just very slowly, and to be able to measure it we might have to observe it for trillions of years. No need though, we've already observed that they might not be constant all across the universe. We don't really understand the universe or what our place in it is, or at least most of us don't. But this too is a silly notion, just because we don't personally know doesn't mean that nobody knows or that this understanding is impossible to attain. People today tend to have this idea of science as a religion, if science doesn't know then nobody knows. But science can't even tell what you're thinking right now, if you don't say what you're thinking to anybody does that mean that thought never existed? Pretty sure you know with 100% certainty that it did exist, but science can't prove it, so for people to claim something doesn't exist simply because science can't prove it is pure dogmatic religious thinking. And considering that science doesn't just have scientists (magicians/priests) now, but tons of follower that don't practice science at all, and even a lot of zealots, I don't see how it's any different from any other religion. What? Because they have better magic tricks than past magicians? Because they call it schools instead of churches or temples? Because they call the local witch doctor a psychologist and demons disorders? Because they call scripture journals? Because they call alchemy chemistry and astrology astronomy? Because they call indoctrination a PhD maybe? Modern science is great an all, at studying nature, it totally sucks at philosophy and imagination though. If science can't do something about this we'll end up a civilization so lacking in creativity that we won't be able to use science to create anything new anyway, stagnation is already taking root. I know science people will get triggered by this, by they have no reason to be, priests and wizards and shamans and all those people where some of the wisest, best read, most intelligent people, in human history. And I even know of modern scientists that like philosophy and aren't totally materialistic and pretty open minded about the metaphysical. The followers though, that's a different story, they're often defend science just as fanatically as any believer will defend their religion.

[@micronda]

Someone imagined conceived and built your program viewer and brought you closer to the truth but you are still lost... why is that so?

[@tomashull9805]

Christopher Hitchens had put so much meaning into his life by alcohol addiction that the universe decided to let him go...

[@tomashull9805]

If there is God then the universe has to have a purpose and therefore meaning... One would think that God would make this information available... but not for the ignorant ones...right?

[@ChavisvonBradfordscience]

Is it possible to create a universe in the laboratory by quantum tunneling? By: Edward Farhi, Alan H. Guth, Jemal Guven Abstract Cosmologists explore the possibility that a new universe can be created by producing a small bubble of false vacuum. The initial bubble is small enough to be produced without an initial singularity, but classically it could not become a universe - instead it would reach a maximum radius and then collapse. Physicists investigate the possibility that quantum effects allow the bubble to tunnel into a larger bubble, of the same mass, which would then classically evolve to become a new universe. The calculation of the tunneling amplitude is attempted, in lowest order semiclassical approximation (in the thin-wall limit), using both a canonical and a functional integral approach. The canonical approach is found to have flaws, attributable to our method of space-time slicing. The functional integral approach leads to a euclidean interpolating solution that is not a manifold. To describe it, physicists define an object which physicists call a “pseudomanifold”, and give a prescription to define its action. Physicists conjecture that the tunneling probability to produce a new universe can be approximated using this action, and physicists show that this leads to a plausible result. Our experience with the WKB method has taught us that euclidean solutions to classical equations of motion can be used to estimate tunneling rates. If physicists reduce our problem to just one degree of freedom, the radius of the bubble wall, mathematicians can then find an imaginary-time solution which goes through the classically forbidden region . This solution starts from the maximum radius of the initial classical trajectory and ends at the minimum radius of the final classical trajectory. From this point of view the problem looks very much like an ordinary one-dimensional tunneling problem, with the euclidean solution interpolating between the turning points . At this level it appears as if the problem is straightforward. When the calculation is continued, however, complications become apparent. Cosmologists have pursued both a canonical and a functional integral approach, finding unexpected results in both cases. We believe that our canonical approach is clearly invalid, but physicists discuss it anyway for its pedagogical value. The functional integral approach also has complications that physicists do not fully understand, but it nonetheless leads to a result which is plausibly correct. In order to construct a canonical description for the one-degree-of-freedom problem, it is necessary to reformulate the action of the full field theory, which is expressed as an integral over the four-dimensional space-time . To do this physicists adopted a recipe for slicing space-time . Each segment of the trajectory was then associated with a region of space-time, and the action for the segment was taken as the field theory action for the corresponding region . In order to maintain explicit time-translation invariance, we chose to slice along hypersurfaces of constant Schwarzschild time or static de Sitter time. This prescription, however, works only for trajectories that lie in the left or right quadrants of the Kruskal diagram and inthe left or right quadrants of the de Sitter diagram. Pursuing the canonical approach, we found that the expression for the canonical momentum p(r, r) is noninvertible, so r cannot be expressed as a function of r and p. This means that it is impossible to define a hamiltonian H(r, p), and the canonical formulation cannot be completed. It is nonetheless possible to evaluate the action for the solution, and we found that the action varies non-monotonically with the bubble mass M, which seems very hard to accept . We also found that, for a range of bubble masses (MD < M < Ms), the canonical momentum p cannot be defined so that it vanishes at both ends of the tunneling trajectory. The alternative, and in this case more successful approach, is the sum over histories. While we cannot even attempt a calculation of the full functional integral, we assume that to leading order in ft the amplitude can be approximated by semiclassical methods. That is, we assume that the amplitude to go from one three-geometry to another is well approximated by ettcl," where Ic , is the action of the classical solution to the field equations which interpolates between the two three-geometries . If no real-time solution exists then we seek a euclidean fourgeometry that solves the imaginary-time field equation and whose boundary is the two three-geometries of interest. The tunneling amplitude is then estimated as e^-IE/h, where IE is the properly subtracted classical action of the euclidean solution - that is, it is the action of the solution, minus the action of a configuration that remains static at the initial state of the tunneling process for the same euclidean time as the solution requires for its transit. Physicists have found, however, that no true euclidean interpolating manifold exists . There is no difficulty or ambiguity in analytically continuing the bubble-wall trajectory into the euclidean regime, but when this trajectory is plotted on a euclidean space-time diagram it is found to cross both the initial and final surfaces of the tunneling problem. These intersection points prevent a conventional manifold interpretation . Physicists admit that we are not sure what the absence of a true interpolating manifold implies about the tunneling problem. Perhaps it indicates that the stationary phase method has failed, perhaps it indicates that one cannot extrapolate the thin-wall approximation into the euclidean regime, or perhaps it is a suggestion that tunneling is for some reason forbidden. Physicists find it difficult to believe, however, that the tunneling process is forbidden, since there is no barrier to constructing a well-defined manifold (with either lorentzian or euclidean signature) that interpolates between the initial and final states . Such a manifold is not a solution, but it would constitute a path contributing to the functional integral. Furthermore, since any small variation about such a path would also contribute, the measure of these paths appears naively to be nonzero. The amplitude would then be nonzero unless the various paths conspire to cancel each other, as they do for an amplitude that violates a conservation principle associated with a symmetry. In the present case, however, there is no apparent symmetry or conservation law at work. We therefore conjecture that the tunneling process is allowed, and that the semiclassical approximation is valid. To characterize the euclidean interpolation we define a pseudomanifold, which cosmologists describe in two alternative ways. In either case, it is specified in terms of the behavior of a hypersurface that evolves continuously through the euclidean Schwarzschild and de Sitter manifolds, beginning at the initial hypersurface of the tunneling process and ending at the final hypersurface . In one description each point is assigned a covering number, defined as the number of times the point is crossed by the evolving hypersurface, with crossings counting positively in one direction and negatively in the other. Source: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/055032139090357J

[@rickhattersley2801]

What in Carl Sagan did you just say?

[@xspotbox4400]

We must lie to ourselves at all times because reality is a nonsense and one day somebody will prove this is true.

[@lizicadumitru9683]

Not sure the term "nonsense" is the correct one ti is here...

[@tomashull9805]

You will not be alive to let you know, if you are wrong...

[@xspotbox4400]

@@tomashull9805 When a man dies, his inner universe seas to exist for the rest of the universe, but memory about a person is forever contained in an eternal star light. It's like universe remembers each one of us forever, but doesn't know who we were, how it felt to be us. So yes, our existence will became indistinguishable from cartoons, whatever we think or do will ultimately amount to a pure nonsense, by definition.

[@tomashull9805]

"Can the universe have meaning without God? Yes, meaning is 42. Well I mean seriously the concept of meaning is a very human subjective psychological concept. The universe itself has no meaning..." Is it me, or is Michel Shermer confused about his own beliefs? If meaning is a subjective psychological concept, how does Shermer know the universe has no meaning? Isn't his view of the universe subjective and perhaps based on his own ignorance or bias? Let's just say someone like me knows that the structure of the universe, it's size, the physical laws directing its moments are just so to cause gravity... Everything has a purpose... Does this knowledge now give meaning to the universe itself? ?Without gravity we wouldn't have this discussion about the meaning of the universe, would we...?

[@kidhiguera]

What I understand is that laws of physics just are, there is no meaning behind them, theres a reason for them yes, but no meaning at all.

[@tomashull9805]

@@kidhiguera But the laws of physics serve a purpose, right?

[@kidhiguera]

Tomas Hull they serve a function, not a purpose.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@kidhiguera Can a reason possibly point to a meaning? I wonder about that.

[@kidhiguera]

John Brzykcy thats precisely the question in hand

[@crackcrazy8390]

Wake me up when aliens arrive

[@jamessmith989]

The DNA has already been compromised. Government disclosure is soon coming.

[@xspotbox4400]

They told me not to wake you up.

[@jamessmith989]

@@xspotbox4400 Lol. Be careful who you are listening to. They can use telepathy.

[@PerceptionVsReality333]

@@jamessmith989 It's going to be a fake alien invasion by the powers that be. They will be using super high tech holographic projections from Project Bluebeam & weather manipulation by HAARP causing the skies to be dark & distorted.

[@jamessmith989]

@@PerceptionVsReality333 Lol. 🙂

[@Domas04]

Oh god, a scientist endures a talk about semiotics of meaning, having no idea how speculation can work beyond a view of algorithm and calculation.

[@yanassi]

Yes i agree most scientists are hardwired into known formulas and accepted theories, but the greatest scientists sees those formulas an theories yet to be proven and accepted. But they are scientist still. They see something then search for understanding and proof. Sometimes the proof is unfound until new technologies are developed. The sight to those things are understood via thought.

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

Can you explain how speculation works out of those things? I'm listening.

[@Domas04]

@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 Why should I? There are variety of writings on religion, theology, and after all, metaphysics.

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

@@Domas04 oh I see, you just want people to know how smart you are. No need to actually be smart though. Have a good one.

[@jamessmith989]

👽 Don't let the bastards grind you down Richard.

[@mickeygarcia1876]

Dumb Question=Dumb Discussion. LOL !!!!

[@Cyberdactyl]

The meaning of this video is masks are not needed.

[@FobbitMike]

Moron.

[@jamessmith989]

0-0=0 genius.

[@VladyslavKL]

🐋

[@bajajones5093]

this is a sad soul. if you are seeking answers why bother with this soul? he is clueless

[@andreea5927]

i support trump!!!💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗

[@laurentiumanolescu]

Trump 2020.

[@FobbitMike]

Politics has no place in science.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@FobbitMike He's talking about Trump.

[@richarddalbis3323]

Trump 2020. It's all that matters.

[@FobbitMike]

Politics has no place in science.

[@richarddalbis3323]

@@FobbitMike Where have you been the last 30yrs? The destructive left has infested every STEM institution and must be crushed into dust. It's Trump or death. Figure that out.

[@jamessmith989]

@@richarddalbis3323 with that being said. Let no man deceive you...

[@richarddalbis3323]

@@jamessmith989 Not Biden/Harris..You're already deceived.

[@pureruckuspower2165]

@@richarddalbis3323 oh ur another one of those. I hate the libs but blind faith is just as dangerous.