Skip to content

Occasional Writing for T38 – A Brief History of Time

April 29, 2013

There are several versions of Errol Morris’ A Brief History of Time available on YouTube. One is embedded below, though you can easily find others if this one disappears.

Sadly, the film is not available through services like Netflix, and the DVDs on Amazon do not play on standard US DVD players. So YouTube it must be. Sorry for any and all confusion about this.

Anyway, here are your prompts:

  1. One of the questions which the film raises is whether something which is endless (or infinite or immortal)  could have meaning. Hawking seemed to discover purpose in his own life only when he was diagnosed with ALS, and he flirts with the idea that a steady-state universe would be pointless. What do you think: would an endless life, whether for a person or a universe, be a pointless life?
  2. At one point Hawking says that our universe has either one of two fates in store: heat death or big crunch. A third possibility is that Hawking is wrong, and we’ve got something else in store. While the fate of the universe is out of our hands, it’s not irrational to hope for one result or another. Is one of the options preferable to the others?
  3. Luck or chance plays a large role in the film. It seems to be only chance at the quantum level that allows for the existence of so-called Hawking radiation. Likewise, it appears to be only chance at the more human level that turns an extremely bright young man into a groundbreaking cosmologist. Does, then, God play dice with the universe, as Einstein denied and Hawking affirmed?

You know the deal. Please turn this assignment in no less than 24 hours before class on T38.


From → Assignments

  1. John Decker permalink

    My first thought on whether or not an infinite lifespan would prove to be meaningless or not seems to be yes, but I am not sure why. There are two reasons though that I think an immortal life, whether it be a universe or a person, would not have meaning. The first is that there is no incentive to perform any actions or accomplish any tasks that make life meaningful if you are going to live forever. I know that I sound like an economist there, but I am one and cannot help to think like that. If you know that you are going to live forever, there is no point in working today to improve tomorrow. It can wait, and it may wait for a very long time. A universe that has an infinite lifespan too does not need to worry about protecting itself or expanding, and it seems like these are things that a universe would be concerned about; even though it is not a sentient being. The other reason that I feel that an immortal life, whether it be a person or universe, would be pointless is that it may be daunting to think about infinite life and nothing would be exciting as you know that you can experience it again some other time. This would take the thrill out of driving a fast car, sky-diving, or seeing a newborn baby. That would be a terrible existence to live in. However, if you are the only one that is immortal you would have a very unique perspective of bearing witness to all of history. This could make your life meaningful if you share these experiences with the mortals for their betterment. In the end though this is a very intriguing question to ask and I do believe that, as of now, I would rather be a mere mortal man than immortal.

  2. Cory Johnson permalink

    2. Is one preferable? Probably not. They’re too roads to the same town, unless they’re not. Let’s see if they are.

    For something to be preferable it must benefit someone or something more than the other. I personally think humans will manage to kill themselves off before these end times come around, but for the sake of argument let’s say they don’t. Let’s assume that humans have more or less survived until the end times, which one is more beneficial for human flourishing?

    I’m no astrophysicst, so I cannot tell you which, but it’s probable that one scenario allows for the existence of human life a little longer than the other. It would seem that maybe our best bet because it gives our species a little more time on the clock. Since we’re dealing with cosmological time scales this “little” amount of time is in the millions, or tens of millions of years. Still, the end is still coming.

    If humans somehow manage to last until one of these events occurs we will be very very different. We will likely have merged with our own synthetic technologies and may not even have a shred of organic matter in our beings. We will have very different capabilities, likely very advanced capabilities. We may even have advanced to the point where we could contemplate intervening against our doomsday. In this case, it would be preferable to have the scenario that is most preventable.

    I’m well aware that any speculation that I do on the subject will be off the mark, but why not take a shot? If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t bet against the second law of thermodynamics. Without going into technical details (because I don’t know them) it’s a pretty hard and fast law that entropy will eventually run its course. This seems to swing against my previous argument about future humans turning back the clock. Who knows?

    “My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” –JBS Haldrone

  3. I believe there is an element of random chance to the universe, but it may not be as random as we perceive it to be… In fact, it may be that we are the ones holding the dice in a rigged game of Craps. Here’s the dilemma: The future is all random in the sense that we can’t predict it (at least we haven’t figured out how to yet). So in that sense, unless we figure out how predict it, it will always be “random,” but we’re all headed down a destined path, whether we know it or not, whether we perceive it as “determined or not.” Now I’ll admit the fact that it is virtually impossible as a human being to “think” about the events (good or bad) which befall us in this sense- we’re constantly working to improve our future, and in that way we can’t think outside of the human existence in which we are trapped (If we knew our future was all predetermined, wouldn’t we just sit at home in front of the TV and try to remain comfortable all day? The fact that we are “movers and shakers” of our own destinies and make things happen for ourselves is in effect a result of our evolution- our survival instincts- Humans don’t survive if they just sit in their cave all day). But every particle moving and interacting in the universe may very well simply be travelling along a predetermined tract, even when they seem like they aren’t. Therefore, it is my assertion, that God is not playing dice with the universe… It’s us. But in reality, we only think we are. In fact, it is entirely possible that while we believe we are influencing our outcomes, we are simply flowing along the only path down which time can travel.

  4. Uddit Patel permalink

    3. God does play a dice with the universe. There has to be a random change that some things occur while other things do not occur in the universe. Does the randomness begin at birth, or do the randomness/ luckiness begin when your parents meet? If the two parents did not meet than a person would not be able to be conceived. The baby that gets born is based on pure luck. Who decides which person completion is born. DNA, genes and a lot of other things which identify a human are based on pure randomness/ luckiness. A human may determine their future with the career they have, the decisions they make on a daily basis, and the food they eat, but they do not determine the way the atoms flow in the air, or who gets which good genes and bad genes. How would these things be determined? The best explanation is with randomness since God would not predefine each atom all around the expanding universe.

    Doesn’t it sometimes feel like the universe is a game of entertainment for God? God just rolls the dice on certain things to see how it will plays out. This is something that may be totally wrong, but comes across my thought process when I notice how many things that are random in this universe. The things that are random and based on luck are an asteroid going around earth vs. hitting earth, which gender is born, which egg is fertilized, how atoms move around, how radiation is emitted, and which comes first the chicken or the egg. There are many more things that come from randomness, and some that I may have not even thought about. Even as supreme person as God would not make everything predictable. I don’t argue that our futures are based on our actions, and some luck. I am just saying what about all the other things that come naturally that a human doesn’t think of on a daily basis. It is just mind-blowing how random and based on luckiness some things are. We may determine our future, but ultimately God does play dice with the universe. Are the atoms in space in a certain way that God predefined them? Hawkings affirmation only seems correct to me.

  5. ricardochavez permalink

    I think the God playing dice analogy may be stretching the rational approach to the end of the world. The reasons may be because of how bringing in God not only loads the assumption but also brings in the whole definition of God. Theoretically if God is a merciful and all-good entity, then there would be no reason for bad occurrences to ever happen to humanity on earth. However, there has obviously been tragedy whether its caused amongst us humans or not. Or could that tragedy be put in place by God as merely a requirement to prevent worse possible tragedy for the future?
    The thing is, we really don’t know. However the whole God perspective I feel brings along a religious struggle against the logical means the world might end. The rational path says mere physics/luck that paves our future while the religious perspective already has one outlined for us (well some belief systems do). However, the fact that God rolls the dice may or not be the whole truth, but in the end the way history has played out, there’s a lot of dice being rolled when it comes to Earthly situations. In the mere case of chance and unpredictability, all religious ramifications aside, Hawking has to be the closest to the truth.

  6. Seth Rodgers permalink

    Prompt 1

    Whether or not an infinite life would have meaning depends on two variables: how you define “meaning” and what type of existence you would lead as an immortal. Given the context, in this case the word meaning can substituted with “purpose.” Although it may seem a bit excessive, I think we should further dissect what purpose is—after all, in order to build on our knowledge, we first have to understand the assumptions we are making which form the complex and error laden foundation of our intellect.

    In short, I believe that purpose is simply that which makes one feel compelled to do something. Therefore, having purpose entails that there is (or someone thinks there is) actually a necessary task to be completed. It follows that the intensity of purpose one experiences is proportionate to the scope of the mission they are drawn to complete. Purpose can be as minute as taking out the trash to avoid an accumulation of clutter and foul odor, or as profound as striving to reduce world hunger. Either way, both scenarios revolve around the existence of a problem, as well a belief in the ability to solve that problem.

    Back to our original question, can one find meaning or purpose in an eternal existence? On one hand, you could argue that since purpose depends on having a problem to solve, given infinite time all problems could be solved and thus a state of complete meaninglessness would ensue where nobody would have a reason to do anything. On another hand, you could argue that solving all problems would produce a perfect world where everyone could experience total fulfillment. Furthermore, the only reason why having nothing to do sounds unappealing is because no one knows what total fulfillment feels like. In such a world, people would not necessarily feel a lack of purpose; rather all purpose would be completed. To paraphrase, purpose is not happiness in and of itself, but rather a means to reach some ultimate happiness. Perhaps we are so far from ultimate happiness that the need for purpose is simply ingrained in our notion of an optimal life.

  7. Monica Hottle permalink

    The definition of “chance” (noun): a possibility of something happening; chance as a verb is to do something by accident of without design; chance as an adjective is fortuitous, accidental. Chance or luck plays a distinct role in many aspects of human history, from events that caused a huge flip in the world due to a small unintentional event, to the invention of something like fudge. However, does God or some higher being “play dice with the universe,” or take a chance with how certain events will end up playing out? I feel like this idea does not work because one of the main ideologies of a higher being is that they lead their people, or provide guidance. When people believe in a higher being, there is an unsaid dependence on that said being for life events, or the idea of “things happen for a reason” or “God has a plan for me.” One of the main benefactors of having faith is the “chance” or “luck” factor in life is supposedly lowered through dedication, faith, prayer, repentence, et cetera. Faith increases during times of distress because during such times people need something to look to and to depend on. People of faith tend to find assurance during desperate times because they take it as God “teaching” them something or putting them through a time of hardship to challenge them. I do not know how many people would keep their faith if it was revealed to them that God was simply rolling the dice and whatever happens would just happen.

  8. kim cory permalink

    I do not like to use this answer but I think the answer to whether an endless life, whether a person or a universe, would be a point less life is depends what kind of life that is or what kind of universe that is. It is hard to just say all life or any universe is worth having infinite life expectancy. It is like asking people how long they want to live. Some people will say I want to live until I am 200 years old so I can see all my family growing up, getting married, and the change of world with the improvement of technology. Some people might say I want to live until I am 53 because I want to only see the good parts of the world and move on. Depends on what the purpose of the life is, the answer to that question can vary. Similar to life, the universe also stands on the same state. If the universe is so rotten and collapsed that there is no chance of improving, there is no point of having that universe infinitely. However, if the universe is the perfect world that people can ask for, it is worth to have that universe infinitely so that everyone in this world can enjoy as long as they would like to. I think the two factors that this answer depends on are purpose and condition. When Hawking found out that he had only two and half more years to live, other people describes him as he was depressed, and he did not want to proceed with his research because it was pointless. However, when he found out that he might get married with his loved one and his disease was slowing down, he wanted to get a job to support his family and research more on what he was passionate about. The change in his attitude is a great example of my answer because his condition and purpose changed since he first found out of his disease and since he found out the different reality. So I really think that depends on the condition and purpose, the answer to this question can vary.

  9. Amy Vander Wyst permalink

    God does play dice with the universe, and one only has to look at Quantum Mechanics, which Einstein denied, to see that it is true. Particles at the quantum level have a wavefunction which represents the probability per unit volume of finding the particle at a time t in a small volume of space centered on a single point (x,y,z). So on such a base level, particles have been created to be capable of “choosing” a spot within a small volume of space that they can move it. We can’t know which exact spot in this space they will “choose”, and nor can God. This wavefunction is inherent in the nature of the particle and as far as its “creation”m any creator would have no control over this wavefunction.

    I am of course arguing for free will here as well. If a person was compared to said particle, then we would have an infinite number of possibilities, of choices, at every instantaneous moment in time. We have been created in the same way, that we can choose whichever one of these possibilities we want, an no one but ourselves can make that possibility a reality. If one chooses to believe in a creator, we can still have free will in this way. In a sense, God created the model of a human being, and human beings did the rest, and we continue to live in this world with our wavefunctions of choices before us.

    Einstein was proven wrong by the discoveries of quantum mechanics, only he was too late to see it realized. He was so adamant that particles could not have entangled properties described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and called the theories of quantum mechanics “spooky action at a distance”. Either his light barrier would be broken, or he denied the possibility of free will. I of course, prefer the former, though it is still unknown how entangled particles can communicate across such vast distances.

    When the film speaks of luck or chance, I think, and I believe Hawking would agree, that it is only referring to coincidence by another name. It is luck, and it is chance that every wavefunction of every quantum particle collapses in such a way as to create our reality exactly the way it is perceived to us.

  10. Caroline Martin permalink

    Prompt #1: An endless life of a human or a universe would indeed be pointless. While it can be argued that an eternal life could possess meaning, I argue that it could never possess purpose, unless its purpose is simply to be. Although purpose, like time, is a manmade word, restricted by man’s mind, I will still apply the definition. Purpose is the reason for which something exists, an intended end or goal. Applying this idea to a more restricted concept of time, imagine that one day lasted forever. You wake up, go about your business, and, as time draws nearer to the perceived end of the day, you never quite reach it; the day continues on. Is that day pointless? You could argue that, during that immortal day, a number of great discoveries, fantastic inventions were made. However, what productivity do these successes allude when they cannot indicate an improved future, the future of the next day? If each human being is reflective of a universe, then I argue that the universe must have an end and, therefore, must have a beginning. Can death exist without life? No. Therefore, if there is no death, there is no “life,” in the metaphorical sense of the word. Life without death is not really life; it’s just being. Being presents no purpose because a state of being does not imply an end, and an end must be present for purpose to exist. Just as the film says, time is a manmade word, limited by man’s mind. Therefore, if you succeed in understanding “imaginary time,” you have achieved what Hawking called “the ultimate triumph of human reason”: to know the mind of God. Since God’s knowledge is unachievable because we are limited by human reason, alternative concepts of time evade us. Therefore, a timeless and immortal existence cannot be given the human term purpose.

  11. Ben Vowell permalink

    2. One would first probably argue that we as a species will probably not survive to see any option at the end of the Universe. For the sake of an interesting debate, we’ll say some sentient life form does appear on Earth near this time and witnesses the inevitable.

    Option one, heat death, seems grim on all levels. The Universe will have expanded and become dim due to the lack of significant energy exchanges. Whoever or whatever is living on Earth might look up at the night sky with its most powerful technology and see nothing. They will not wonder at stars and distant places, they will feel essentially alone in an infinite nothingness. Slowly, everything will die and become radiation or some other form of elementary energy. Life will cease to exist, forever. This is probably one of the worst endings I can think of.

    The Big Crunch, however, might be much more interesting. Suddenly, the Earth will be taken on an interstellar journey. Assuming we can survive the ensuing darkness and distance from a sun, we should be in for quite the ride. Distant stars and other objects will come much closer and collisions of galaxies and other things will be more and more frequent. Of course, at some point we will collide with some other mass and be destroyed, but it will be a glorious death. Additionally, if the Big Crunch is proven to be cyclical in conjunction with the Big Bang, humans can take heart knowing that even though their time has come and gone, there will be those that come after us and most likely those who have come before us.

    Personally, I have hope that advanced forms of life that inhabit the future will find some way out of it. Maybe they can reverse whatever process is playing out in the Universe right now. I won’t be around, but if I was maybe I would become some sort of space tourist and spend my days floating around points of interest, eventually flying into a black hole. This would at least give me the illusion that I had a choice.

  12. 2) Oddly enough I think this question and the next one are interrelated: because the fate of the world is not in our control and I believe that there is no God that is rolling the dice above it is somewhat concerning that our successors on this planet will face an untimely and perhaps fatal death. Yet because we seem to have no apparent control over this idea (thanks in large part to Hawking’s idea of Hawking radiation) there seems to be no basis for our preoccupation with the end of the universe. And of all the theories of the universe’s end, none of them are very pleasant: being heated into oblivion, reforming the large mass of matter that created the universe in the first place, drifting far enough from the sun and the rest of the planets in the solar system that we go on an infinitely tangential path that kills all life on Earth, etc. Additionally, none of these theories can occur, given the state of the universe as it is, for hundreds and thousands and probably millions of years. Though I appreciate the legacy that my offspring and their offspring will pass on, for me the problem isn’t mine to worry about. We have enough of a mystery to solve between the existence of God and trying to predict exactly how the universe will end.

    Like space-time itself, the universe must have a beginning and an end. If God exists He will save the “chosen” ones from the destruction of the universe that every theory of the end of the universe defines. Or at least he would in an ideal image of the God figure that can save us. Of course, in doing so, we realize that there is a choice and perhaps the destruction of the universe could have been stopped, making God a very vengeful being. Which may then allow some to decide that it’s best to just end with the universe than to succumb to his will.

  13. Heather Ireland permalink

    I believe that there are no options which are preferable to the others. At the end of the Universe, we will all die. The end result is the same and therefore it does not matter how we get to that point. In the words of Robert Frost,
    “Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.”
    Even if Hawking is wrong about the big crunch or heat death, there was a beginning to our universe and there will be an end. There could be a cosmic universe ending event tomorrow, however, we do not know that there will be or will not be, just as no human knows the day or way in which they will die. I could die 30 years down the line from cancer, or I could die in two hours from a car accident. It is the end of a life and it is part of the natural flow to our universe. I am not sure whether it is better to know the universe is going to end or to have it come unexpectedly. On one hand, by being able to predict the death of our universe would allow people to get their affairs in order, or potentially develop a method to travel outside of our universe and save humanity. On the other side, the unpredictable end of the universe allows for the natural order of things to continue: the universe started was an unpredictable event and so why shouldn’t its end be as well?

  14. John Yang permalink

    Seeing as the only two options Stephen Hawking provides us are exceedingly bleak and result in an inescapable doom for all humankind, I would say the third option of hoping for something else in store is the most preferable of possibilities. Hawking theorizes that the universe will either reach a point of maximum entropy and cease to exist, or that the universe will collapse upon itself due to its incapability to continue forever. Who is to say that the universe simply will never cease to grow or that it simply has no maximum entropy cap? After all, the word universe implies the never-ending existence of possibility reaching into infinity, and infinity cannot be contained by entropy or expansion limits. The hope and/or belief that human life can endure on and continue to improve, evolve, and strive for perfection and greater and better achievements seems to me a much better alternative to an abrupt, insignificant end. There are also the religious beliefs of a new world, which always provide courage to many inspiring people in the world. Without their consistent faith and belief, they lose the drive that pushes them to be the individuals that inspire so many to do good in the world. And when people despair and lose hope because they lose inspiration from their role models and heroes, chaos and negativity descends upon the world, and this is an outcome that is certainly less than desirable. Having a light at the end of the tunnel gives people the strength to carry on and a reason to live in a positive way, and to me at least, the two fates that Hawking provides us lack that goal and reason to live at a level above that of simple animals and beasts that selfishly, mindlessly, and feverishly live to maintain their own survival and nothing else.

  15. Taylor Warren permalink

    1. For whatever reason, it seems that people have trouble acquiring “motivation” for their lives until they encounter tragedy, be it directly related to their own life or somebody that they are close with. Whether an endless life is pointless entirely depends on that person’s attitude. I’m sure for a short while they might feel they could provide endless help to those around, but gradually they would become selfish over time and eventually end up bitter and cynical, as they watch everyone they know and love live and pass away before their eyes. In actuality, the definition of “pointless” (according to Merriam-Webster) is ‘devoid of effectiveness; empty’. If something exists in this world, be it an endless life or universe, just existing is enough to be meaningful. Whether or not they are doing good or doing bad, they are doing something and that provides sense to the endlessness. Of course, one would hope that through the endless decades, an immortal life would find joy and peace in doing good, effecting the lives around them in a positive way. Just like any life, there would be ups and downs, but in this case that rollercoaster would be set to an unstoppable loop. The brevity of life is what gives it meaning (to us) i.e. you need to see as much, do as much, and experience as much as you can before you die. In this case, that type of motivation would be nonexistent. So a new motivation would need to arise—to have an effect on the world, be it good or bad, almost like a God-concept. Immortality seems nice at first, but in the end it would be more of a curse than a gift. It would take a rare creature to find peace and happiness in a life without end, I think. However, to answer the question, “yes” an endless life can have meaning… they would just have to find it and embrace it, knowing that whatever they do, would always impact something or someone in the world.

  16. K.Rengan permalink

    The terms meaning and purpose, in question one, can be used interchangeably to answer the question. Much like Neo and the theme of an individual’s meaning and purpose the universe’s identity is tied to its creation. Neo had a beginning and an end which gave balance back to the Matrix. His life expressed a purpose through his death, because if Zion was completely destroyed, and Neo did not accomplish his mission, we can think that his life was meaningless and had no purpose but that of cannon fodder for the machines. It is in this notion that we can wonder if Hawking’s life would yield the same results if he was perfectly healthy and was not compelled to fully explore his work. But I think this kind of thinking can set a very devilish perception of individual rights because our worth would only be tied to our accomplishments. To precisely answer the prompt, an endless life is not a pointless life. You can still have a purpose or express meaning even without a purpose. For I think that the ultimate purpose of the Universe is to hold life –even for a brief section of time. In that universe the individual does not need to express worth, but we can say that the meaning of life is to simply live. By the mere fact that the universe exists we exist and like what King Henry said through Shakespeare “all things are forgot.” We may just be another iteration of something in the past, but to live endlessly is just to support the assumption that this universe supports life and that is our final purpose also.

  17. Shelby permalink

    Hawking’s mother even said that she doubted if he would have ever worked like he has if it were not for his diagnosis with ALS. That is was this very drastic reminder that his life was in fact not endless. It is ironic that it was his diagnosis that urged him to begin his focused work because his life was limited even before he got sick – he was always going to die but before his diagnosis he felt pointless and endless, as if it were just his perspective which made it limited and meaningful. But Hawking does entertain the idea that a steady-state universe would be pointless. For one thing for sure, it may not necessarily be pointless, but it would definitely be a lot more boring. The thing about this is how tricky time is – as a man made concept which we measure our lives and everything. What distinctly intrigues Hawking is the idea of the beginning of time and space. He says in the film, the increase of disorder is what gives the direction to time. It seems like it is not for this beginning or for some kind of limited time or universe, there is a pointlessness about it. To go on forever, endless, it would be purposeless. It is hard to say what is the deeper purpose, but for a person or a universe, to not have a limited time of existence, is to not have a purpose.

  18. J. Lucky permalink

    An endless life does seem to me to be quite pointless. I like to think of life in terms of a game or a race, not necessarily against some other opponent but rather against ourselves and our own weaknesses and limitations. If this game is but a momentary occurrence, then we have a limited to achieve what we can in order to come out on top (to win), or in other words make it a life worth having lived. However, if this life is infinite, or even continuing in stages, then it seems that we can never actually win because there is no finish line. We may be able to reach perfection, and why wouldn’t we with infinite time. But what would be the point of said perfection if we then continue and there is nothing left for us to improve, no conflict and no challenges. This is actually the reason that I left Mormonism during my mission, because there is no point in playing a game or running a race if it never ends. There is no success or failure there is just continuing on and on without even having the possibility of quitting. This is true, at least in my opinion, of all existence.

  19. Luck or chance plays a large role in the film because it plays a large role in our lives. Yes, it seems to be only chance at the quantum level that allows for the existence of so-called Hawking radiation and to be only chance at the more human level that turns an extremely bright young man into a groundbreaking cosmologist; yet, I do not think that chance plays as big of a role in the universe as given credit. God could be playing some sort of a game of dice with the universe as far as giving people certain characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses to see what we can do with them in our lives, but ultimately, I think that God knows what we will do with what he gives us. I would lean towards Einstein on this point because I think that, no matter what, God knows what the outcome of the universe will be. I think that what we choose to do with what we are given and have as human beings are somewhat up to us, but at the same time, no matter what we choose to do with it, God already knows. So, to me, there is a role that chance plays in the universe, but I do not think that God relies on it as much as people may think. I think that what we choose to do with our lives is the part that includes chance, but chance has a leash on it, because I do not think that we can change the path of the universe based on chance alone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: