<div dir="ltr"><div>There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for example). It makes little to no sense to rely on a mathematical proof or to even give it more credit than some empirical evidence. I, myself, feel pretty safe with the arguments provided so far (I do not pretend anyone else to do so, perhaps you don't, but my understanding is that the people that know and certainly would be concerned, are satisfied enough), of course as long as the calculations were correct, i.e. that if nature does not produce such black holes, CERN would therefore not produce them in the same circumstances and at lower energies. For certain there will be still people that feel unsafe and I think that is also good, always some dissension helps to get things right and force the other side to be even more convincing. What I definitely would think is definitely wrong, is that a mathematical proof can give any definite proof of the real world. I once worked in an animal behaviour lab where they wanted me to prove theorems about animal behaviour and I told them they were insane =)</div><div><br></div><div>All Best,</div><div><br></div><div>- Hector</div><div><br></div><div>P.s. Notice I am a mathematician by training, so I am not suggesting at all to throw away maths, but I think some people clearly overestimate the power of maths or math theories as if axioms were physical 'trues', when they are merely mathematical assumptions. Similar to people that have proven the Church thesis in the negative because they have created a theoretical model that computes beyond the Turing limit, the problem is not that one, the problem is to show it can be implemented and one can actually compute with such models.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><br><br><br><br>-------<br>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the message.</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com" target="_blank">plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="georgia, serif">Dear Terry and FISers,</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds reasonable. Hawking's argument is also good. But he was also wrong a couple of times. What you say about maths is also true, but the issue is more about the moral and methodology of science. We cannot afford doing Frankenstein experiments on this small Earth. Do we know the consequences of all these experiments for our ecology? Polynesia is still suffering the French H-bomb tests in the 1950s: </font><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/french-nuclear-tests-polynesia-declassified" target="_blank">https://www.<wbr>theguardian.com/world/2013/<wbr>jul/03/french-nuclear-tests-<wbr>polynesia-declassified</a>.<span style="font-family:georgia,serif"> As I told Lou, if the experiments were made in another remote galaxy, I would not have a problem as an observer. But they are made here, under our feet, and there is no guarantee that they cannot go wrong. We cannot escape anywhere. Again, this has nothing to do with the statistics of airplane or lift crashes. The entire human civilisation of 100.000 years can disappear within a minute. Maybe not with this experiment, but with the next one. Of course, this could happen also with an asteroid or a comet hit, or a series of volcano eruptions and earthquakes, but don’t we have other, more important problems to solve here on Earth? </span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif">All the best.</span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif">Plamen</span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div><div>______________________________<wbr>______________________________</div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Terrence W. DEACON <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">deacon@berkeley.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:13px"><span class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-"><p>Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there is another option than simply avoiding performing any such experiment until reaching mathematical certainty. I am much more persuaded by the results of "experiments of nature" than by anyone's calculations. And there is ample evidence from the results of such "experiments" that the predicted catastrophic consequences will not occur (because they have not, despite millions of replications). I quote again from </p><p><a href="http://press.cern/" target="_blank">http://press.cern/</a>backgrounder<wbr>s/safety-lhc</p></span><span class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968gmail-im"><p dir="ltr">"Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University</p><span class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-"><p dir="ltr">"Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes." Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago</p></span></span><p>Math is not the ultimate arbiter. But if we didn't have this empirical background it would have been a good reason to seek out empirical counter-examples before running our own test. Of course this sort of caution was not heeded when we tested nuclear weapons.</p><p>— Terry</p></div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-size:13px"><div class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968gmail-adm"><div id="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968gmail-q_15989e079820b767_3" class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968gmail-ajR m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968gmail-h4"></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-">On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com" target="_blank">plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div><div class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra">Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are wrong? <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">What if the data that were measured are incorrect?<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">We have had this many times in human history. Titanik was considered unsinkable.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Bismark too. But both went down to the seaground.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Where is the mathematical proof or the computer simulation?<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Plamen<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968m_-76382910704884467gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>______________________________<wbr>______________________________</div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:32 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tozziarturo@libero.it" target="_blank">tozziarturo@libero.it</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><p style="margin-top:0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p dir="ltr">"The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">"The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">"Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">"I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">"There is no risk [in LHC collisions, and] the LSAG report is excellent."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Prof. Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society of London<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">"Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read LSAG report where all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the LHC cannot lead to a catastrophic consequences."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Academician V.A. Rubakov, Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">"We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC."</p>
<p dir="ltr">R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://press.cern/" target="_blank">http://press.cern/</a>backgrounder<wbr>s/safety-lhc<br><br><br><br></p>
<div id="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968m_-76382910704884467m_-4077418616373038472mail-app-auto-default-signature">
<p dir="ltr">--<br> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android</p>
</div>martedì, 10 gennaio 2017, 06:09PM +01:00 da Louis H Kauffman <a>loukau@gmail.com</a>:<br><br><blockquote id="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968m_-76382910704884467m_-4077418616373038472mail-app-auto-quote" style="border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(133,175,49);margin:0px 0px 0px 10px;padding:0px 0px 0px 10px" cite="http://14840682780000026474">
<div class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968m_-76382910704884467m_-4077418616373038472js-helper m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968m_-76382910704884467m_-4077418616373038472js-readmsg-msg">
<div>
<div id="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968m_-76382910704884467m_-4077418616373038472style_14840682780000026474_BODY">Dear Folks,<div>It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning Professor Rossler made is to be taken seriously.</div><div>It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or false.</div><div>It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly alligned to physical prediction.</div><div>Note also that a reaction such as </div><div>"THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.</div><div>Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the form of taking a given conclusion for granted</div><div> and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion. </div><div><br></div><div>By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political state of the world.</div><div><br></div><div>This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of the possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.</div><div><br></div><div>At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall read and look forward to making further comments next week.</div><div>Best,</div><div>Lou Kauffman</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <<a>pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>From Alex Hankey</p><p>-------- Mensaje reenviado --------</p>
<div>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap align="RIGHT" valign="BASELINE">Asunto:
</th>
<td>Re: [Fis] A Curious Story</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap align="RIGHT" valign="BASELINE">Fecha: </th>
<td>Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap align="RIGHT" valign="BASELINE">De: </th>
<td>Alex Hankey <a><alexhankey@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap align="RIGHT" valign="BASELINE">Para: </th>
<td>PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
<a><pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN
PERMANENTLY AND SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.</div>
<div><br>
<div>On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO
CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <span dir="ltr"><<a>pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10pt">Dear
FISers,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017
sessions.</div>
<div>I really hope that this Curious Story is just that,
a curiosity.</div>
<div>But in science we should not look for hopes but for
arguments and counter-arguments...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New
Year!</div>
<div>--Pedro</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:'times new roman';font-size:16px">
<hr>
<div style="direction:ltr"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>De:</b> Otto E.
Rossler [<a>oeross00@yahoo.com</a>]<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> miércoles, 04 de enero de
2017 17:51<br>
<b>Para:</b> PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ<br>
<b>Asunto:</b> NY session<br>
</font></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:helveticaneue,'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,'lucida grande',sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div dir="ltr"><span>----------------------</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div><b><span style="font-size:20pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">A Curious Story</span></b></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Otto E. Rossler, University
of Tübingen, Germany<br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Maybe I am the only one who
finds it curious. Which fact would then
make it even more curious for me. It goes
like this: Someone says “I can save your
house from a time bomb planted into the
basement” and you respond by saying “I
don’t care.” This curious story is taken
from the Buddhist bible.
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">It of course depends on who
is offering to help. It could be a lunatic
person claiming that he alone can save the
planet from a time-bomb about to be
planted into it. In that case, there would
be no reason to worry. On the other hand,
it could also be that you, the manager,
are a bit high at the moment so that you
don't fully appreciate the offer made to
you. How serious is my offer herewith made
to you today?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">I only say that for eight
years' time already, there exists no
counter-proof in the literature to my at
first highly publicized proof of danger. I
was able to demonstrate that the miniature
black holes officially attempted to be
produced at CERN do possess two radically
new properties:
<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<ul dir="ltr">
<li><span style="font-family:symbol" lang="EN-US"><span><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'times new roman'"></span></span></span><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">they cannot Hawking
evaporate </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family:symbol" lang="EN-US"><span><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'times new roman'"></span></span></span><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">they grow exponentially
inside matter</span><br>
</li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family:symbol" lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"></span>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">If these two findings hold
water, the current attempt at producing
ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth
near the town of Geneva means that the
slower-most specimen will get stuck inside
earth and grow there exponentially to turn
the planet into a 2-cm black hole after
several of undetectable growth. Therefore
the current attempt of CERN's to produce
them near Geneva is a bit curious. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">What is so curious about
CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one
finds it curious. I am reminded of an old
joke: The professor informs the candidate
about the outcome of the oral exam with
the following words “You are bound to
laugh but you have flunked the test.” I
never understood the punchline. I likewise
cannot understand why a never refuted
proof of the biggest danger of history
leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check
an unattended piece of luggage on the
airport called Earth?
<span> </span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">To my mind, this is the most
curious story ever -- for the very reason
that everyone finds it boring. A
successful counter-proof would thus
alleviate but a single person’s fears –
mine. You, my dear reader, are thus my
last hope that you might be able to
explain the punch line to me: “Why is it
that it does not matter downstairs that
the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely
curious to learn why attempting
planetocide is fun. Are you not?<br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">For J.O.R.<br>
</span></div>
<div>
<div>---------------</div>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="display:block">
<div style="font-family:helveticaneue,'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,'lucida grande',sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div style="font-family:helveticaneue,'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,'lucida grande',sans-serif;font-size:16px">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a>Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a rel="noreferrer">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Alex
Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">
(M.I.T.)<br>
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,<br>
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle<br>
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India <br>
Mobile (Intn'l): <a value="+447710534195">+44 7710 534195</a> </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"></span>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Mobile
(India) +91 900 800 8789</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">
<div style="font-size:12.8px">______________________________<wbr>______________________________</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">2015
JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life
Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological
Philosophy</a></span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a>Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a>Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-</a>bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><span class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-"><div class="m_-3409030571148868569gmail-m_4768479348761245968gmail_signature">Professor Terrence W. Deacon<br>University of California, Berkeley</div>
</span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>