Essay Abstract

For any measurement to be made of a system undergoing unitary evolution, it must be partitioned into subsystems. Similar partitioning is also a necessary requirement for decoherence. This leads to questions about the assumed classicality of the early universe, a cosmological expression of the measurement problem. I argue that while the universe as a whole is continuous, "reality" emerges from a partitioning in which observed asymmetries in the environment are quantized by biological and technological systems. The entire observable universe may be a phenomenon unique to the techno-biological realm.

Author Bio

After majoring in Biological Science at the University of California Berkeley, and while preparing for a graduate program, an offer to interview rock stars for a music magazine lured me away from academia. I have since authored several books for musicians, including the popular "Guerrilla Home Recording." Along the way I became interested in physics.

Download Essay PDF File

24 days later
  • [deleted]

Dear Karl,

You conclude your essay:

"The registration of photons need not be a function of consciousness or any other anthropocentric notion. But perhaps, absent the partitioning and measuring of the world by techno-biological systems, no photon would register, anywhere."

What exactly do you mean by this?

Are there events in Nature and are they discrete (independent of the observer), or there are no DISCRETE events in Nature (and we "create" them)?

    • [deleted]

    Lev: I mean the latter (assuming that by discrete you mean discontinuous). I argue that there are no discontinuities in nature, even though discontinuities are part of our experience of reality as biological beings, at least in some sense. I apologize if that was unclear at the end.

    • [deleted]

    Karl, if I understood you correctly, you rely on the basic continuous formalism to claim that the Nature is continuous, and it is our measurement activities that deceive us into believing otherwise.

    In this connection, what do you think about the Schrödinger's opinion on p.1 of my essay?

    • [deleted]

    Lev: Schrödinger seems to be saying that continuous descriptions are incompatible with the facts of observation. I would agree, but my essay argues that these facts have no ontology independent of the biological and technological systems doing the observing. However, it does seem that processes which yield no potential facts of observation (in the terminology of my essay, that bear no extrinsic information in relation to an observer, for example a symmetrical double slit experiment), do obey the Schrödinger equation, which of course is a continuous description.

    Incidentally, I don't think your essay's formalism is incompatible with these ideas -- we do need a better language to formalize the discrete facts of observation.

    • [deleted]

    Given his sophistication, do you feel comfortable, Karl, to assume that Schrödinger himself made a big mistake of not taking his equation seriously enough?

    By the way, if in all our activities we view reality in term of classes (i.e. partitions), isn't it also reasonable to assume that reality itself consists of classes, and this is why we got into this "business of partitioning" in the first place?

    • [deleted]

    Schrödinger did not know about decoherence, so I suppose my answer would be yes. I think Dieter Zeh would agree with me.

    11 days later

    Dear Karl,

    I enjoyed reading your essay, in which you describe Quantum Mechanics and Decoherence in a deep and well-prepared way, and argue convincingly that biological and technological agents are performing measurements, emerging thus a digital world from a continuous wavefunction. In many points I concur with your vision - here and here is my view on Quantum Mechanics.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

      • [deleted]

      Cristi: Thank you for your kind comments. Happily, I am seeing a lot of crossover between many of these essays and the ideas in my humble attempt. And, nice job on the YouTube video -- as you might be able to tell, I am a fan of Dieter Zeh, and I suspect he would like it, too.

      I'm currently trying to catch up on my essay reading, but I look forward to reading yours, as well as checking out the paper you linked to. Best of luck in the contest.

      11 days later
      • [deleted]

      Hello dear Karl Coryat,

      The partitions of spinning spheres sing and dance,we listen them in their waves of rotations, their volumes as a superimposing of their musics.....

      Beautiful essay, good luck in this contest

      Best

      Steve

        • [deleted]

        Thank you Steve. If your spheres are out there, that would explain the partitioning necessary for reality to emerge. Have a good day.

        • [deleted]

        Hi dear Karl,

        You are welcome.And thanks also.

        Good day also.

        Steve

        Dear Karl,

        Thank you for your remarks on my essay page, to which I try to respond here. I have enjoyed reading your lucid essay.

        There are many detailed discussions of decoherence in the early universe and its role in the emergence of classicality. For instance the very nice paper by Kiefer and Polarski :

        http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0087

        The role of environment in the early Universe is played by the interaction [entanglement] of a primordial fluctuation of a given wave mode with other modes.

        As pointed out by Mukhanov's remarks in your essay, decoherence alone cannot solve the quantum-to-classical transition problem in the early Universe [even though decoherence is an experimentally tested fact]. It must be supplemented by the many worlds interpretation. I particularly like the article

        `Why decoherence has not solved the quantum measurement problem', by Adler, at

        http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112095

        Personally I hesitate to accept many-worlds, as in my view it is an experimentally unfalsifiable interpretation. But then this is a subjective opinion :-)

        The question raised by you, what causes measurement in the early Universe, is definitely very interesting. In my essay I am suggesting that stochastic fluctuations causing dynamic collapse are at work in the early Universe too, because of the presence of growing primordial density fluctuations, generated perhaps during inflation.

        These issues are recently being discussed also by Daniel Sudarsky and colleagues.

        It seems to me that we have diametrically opposite views on quantum/classical vis a vis digital/analog. For me Schrodinger evolution in quantum theory is digital [wave function is continuous but then there are the commutation relations which make eigenvalues of observables digitized for bound systems]. And I am calling classical systems analog because the point-like structure affords a continuum in spacetime, and also because observables take continuous values (though they were digitized in the corresponding quantum set-up).

        Best wishes,

        Tejinder

        Hi Karl ,

        enjoyable, easy to read and interesting. I too can see some overlap in the ideas we are talking about.I think you have addressed the essay question very clearly.

        There are also some parts where we are not in agreement but I will let my own essay speak for itself rather than argue the points on your thread.

        We seem to agree that the Universe that exists unobserved is most likely analogue but detection, measurement and then (whether biological or mathematical) modeling and interpretation from those inputs, produces a digital interpretation of and experience of reality.

        Good luck.

        6 days later
        • [deleted]

        Dear Karl,

        You write ---"A core principle of Hugh Everett III's many-worlds interpretation is that the entire universe is a quantum system described by a "state function, " and therefore, if quantum mechanics is an accurate description of the universe, then the universe (as a closed system) evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation"---

        I disagree for different reasons: 'evolving deterministically' presupposes the existence of a definite starting point which (as you've read my essay, know I think it cannot have). I also object to 'deterministically' as this suggests that we live in a Laplacian universe:

        "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. ". Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace#Laplace.27s_demon 14 Feb 2011)

        If a universe is to create itself out of nothing, and it finds a way to do is, then can it unlearn how to create itself and stop creating? This is the core of our present problems in physics: the assumption that though we had to admit that no point in the universe can be more special than any other, we still keep deluding ourselves that the time we live in is unique. That is: that the universe as a whole evolves, which is impossible if there's nothing outside of it with respect to which it can be in any particular state at all. If, as far as it makes sense to speak about the expansion of "the" universe, and every point is as unique as any other, as any point or particle is at the center of its own universe, and they all take part in this expansion, then there's some autonomy at every point which defies a cause coming from one neighboring point or particle to proceed unhampered to its 'intended' effect at another neighboring particle. In other words, as every particle of every link of any chain between causes and effects has some minimal autonomy as it actively takes part in the expansion, in the creation process of the universe, then "the" universe only evolves partly deterministically. As this is like being half-pregnant, it does not evolve deterministically at all: that it keeps obeying the laws that enable its creation, laws it creates itself so future developments can roughly be predicted, does not mean that everything is predestined.

        Regards, Anton

          • [deleted]

          Anton -- Thank you for the comment. Please don't get me wrong; I do not believe in predestination, nor do I believe that the observed universe evolves deterministically. The key word there is "observed." We need to make a distinction between the observed universe -- everything that we can see, which includes our embedded selves -- and the greater universe, or perhaps better said the multiverse: the closed, unpartitioned whole comprising the many worlds of the MWI. Such a closed system would not have a definite starting point, but rather, many potential beginnings (as in Hawking's top-down cosmology).

          My understanding of MWI is that the "bird's view," the theoretical omniscient-observer view of the entire universe, is a perspective to which we observers are not and cannot be privileged. Many of the other essays have commented on this difficulty of describing the fundamental nature of a universe in which we observers are inextricably embedded. It is the unknowable closed universe as a whole which evolves deterministically. Unobserved or isolated pockets within our observed universe, such as the superpositions in SQUID experiments or individual quanta in a symmetrical double-slit experiment, are closed systems which can be demonstrated to evolve deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation. The Everett viewpoint is merely that the closed universe as a whole behaves according to the same rules as individual isolated quanta. Forgive me if I misunderstand this premise.

          Now, when the universe is partitioned into subsystems -- as ours necessarily must be, given that we are able to observe anything at all, and can distinguish among individual objects in the world -- it is no longer a closed system, and so in doing physics we are forced to describe the interaction of subsystems. The question is then, what is the origin and fundamental nature of this partitioning? That is what my essay seeks to address.

          • [deleted]

          http://classsex.ru/sex/219.jpg

          http://opapizda.com/img/10/index.jpg

          http://tdq.in/images/1/128.jpg

          Ïëàíèðîâàíèå Áåðåìåííîñòè Íåðåãóëÿðíûé Г'ГҐГЄГ±

          Г'ГҐГЄГ± Г'Г® Г'òàðóøêàìè Ïîðíî

          Õî÷åòñÿ Àíàëüíîãî Г'ГҐГЄГ±Г 

          Ïîçû Г'ГҐГЄГ± Г"îòîãàëëåðåÿ

          Г"èëüì Г'ГҐГЄГ± Áîëüøîì Ãîðîäå

          Г"îòîìîäåëè Ýðîòèêà Г"îòî

          Êðóæêà Г'ГЁГ±ГјГЄГЁ

          Www Sex Chat Ru

          Áîëüøèå Г'ГЁГ±ГјГЄГЁ Rupics

          Æèâîé Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ðàçãîâîð

          Jodix Free Ipod Video

          Âèäåî Ãðóïïîâîãî Г'ГҐГЄГ±Г 

          Ïîðíî Ðûæèå

          Play Free Video

          Г'óàëåò Ïîðíî Âèäåî

          Ïîðíî Àíàëüíîããî Г'ГҐГЄГ±Г 

          ГЊГЁГ­ГЁ Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ðîëèêè

          Ïîðíî Ãàëëåðåè Èíöåñòà

          Ãëàâíàÿ

          Æåíñêîå Äîìèíèðîâàíèå Ïîðíî

          Г'âîè Áîëüøèå Г'ГЁГ±ГјГЄГ 

          Ïîðíî Г'èòüêàìè

          Ïîäðîñòêîâàÿ Ýðîòèêà Г"îòî

          Ïðîñìîòîð Ïîðíî Г"èëüìû

          Ëþáèòåëüñêèå Ïîðíî Г"îòî Г'âèíãåðîâ

          Ïîðíî Hjkbrb

          Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ïèñüìî

          Г'òóëü÷èê Ïîðíî

          15 Г'ГҐГЄГ±

          Ïîðíî Ãàëåðåè Ãðóïîâîãî Г'ГҐГЄГ±Г 

          Г'ГІГҐГЇГ  Ìåíùèêîâ Г'ГҐГЄГ±

          Ïðîäîëæèòåëüíûé Г'ГҐГЄГ±

          ГЂГ­Г Г« Êîí÷èë Ïèçäà Г'ГҐГЄГ±

          Ãðóñíîå Г...áàëî

          Æåñòêîå Ïîðíî Õàëÿâà

          Г"îòêè Ïîïîê

          Ïîðíî Г"èëüìû Áåïëàòíûå

          Ãëàâíàÿ

          Îíëàéí Ãåé Ïîðíî Âèäåî

          Dvd Êóðüåð Ïîðíî

          Г'àéò Êàðòèíêè Ïëåéáîé Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ìîäåëè

          Dear Karl,

          You write

          ---"It is the unknowable closed universe as a whole which evolves deterministically. "---

          Though all things inside of it certainly evolve with respect to each other, if the universe creates itself out of nothing, so the total of everything, including space and time remains nil, then it doesn't exist as a whole. If particles create themselves out of each other, like zero's splitting into positive and negative numbers (energies), then the total of all these numbers in the universe remains zero. Unlike numbers, particles alternate their charge or energy sign at a frequency equal to the 'number', the energy of the particle. Now if the sum of all these numbers stays zero as conservation principles require, then there is no 'excess' charge which can be involved in an observation reaction from outside the universe: all charge is tied up in the exchange between particles inside of it, so the universe has a zero 'net charge'. This is why I insist that the sum remains nil: to keep aware of the fact that particles power each other's existence, that 'to be' is a verb and not a noun, a passive state. It is this continuous exchange which knits spacetime together, which makes particle force each other to obey the laws, the rules of behavior, the frequencies to oscillate at etc., they themselves have installed or are the product of, laws which must be obeyed if they are to belong to the same universe, if they are to exist to each other. The universe, then, only exists to inside observers and objects which are physically part of it, so it makes no sense to ask how much energy it contains, how old and large it is. A statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg. The radius of the Universe is 0.95x10^26 meter" doesn't make any sense if there's nothing outside the universe with respect to which these quantities matter, have a physical reality to. Whether the universe exists as a whole or not isn't so much a philosophical question: it is of crucial importance to physics if we want to understand nature. By insisting that inside particles exist, have a reality even if they wouldn't interact at all, as if but for practical reasons they are observable from outside the universe, we distort their properties beyond recognition, so they become incomprehensible. By insisting that their charge is either positive or negative, no matter what happens, that their mass is a property, a quantity which is constant, independent from interactions, we create a theory in which forces and interaction energies become infinite at infinitesimal distances. We can avoid this unsolvable problem by accepting the idea that in a self-creating universe any property must be as much the product as the source of particle interactions. As the same holds for the force between them, forces between particles cannot be either attractive or repulsive. Though the charge of particles then cannot be either positive or negative, that doesn't mean that the Maxwell laws don't apply. Of course they do: it is only our 19th century notion of what charge is which urgently needs revision, which must be translated in the non-causal language of quantum mechanics. Since according to our present, simplistic ideas particles either attract or repulse so the strength of the force between them solely depends on their distance, the question arose as to how protons can fit in atomic nuclei despite their huge electric repulsion. Though this repulsion is said to be 10^38 times stronger than gravity between them, as a force never can exceed (or be smaller) than the counter force it is able to evoke, it evidently cannot be greater than the opposition to it the particles offer, to their inertia. If we apply Einstein's equivalence principle and call every influence which brings the inertia of an object to expression as a counterforce 'gravity', then there's only gravity. To distinguish it from the weak force pulling Newton's apple, I've called the continuous energy exchange between particles which powers their inertia 'strong gravity'. So there also is no need for the strong nuclear force (see UPDATE 1 - STRONG FORCE, 4 Feb, at my thread), for string theory nor Higgs bosons.

          ---"It is the unknowable closed universe as a whole which evolves deterministically."---

          Though everything continuously changes inside the universe, it does not evolve as a whole, so doesn't make sense to speak about 'unknowable' as this presumes that it has particular properties as a whole, which for practical reasons we cannot unveil. As to "deterministically", the only rule the universe follows is that the grand total of everything inside of it remains nil, so it cannot, as a whole, be ascribed a state which evolves, let alone in a 'deterministic' manner. It can only have properties, evolve as a whole if there's a clock outside of it, a clock which directs the pace of inside events, but is not itself affected by whatever happens inside of it, which is a religious view on the universe.

          ---"the "bird's view," the theoretical omniscient-observer view of the entire universe, is a perspective to which we observers are not and cannot be privileged."---

          This again presupposes that the universe as a whole has some particular properties, as if it is embedded in something larger and interacting with it, implying the universe to be an object which passively has been created by some outside intervention.

          ---"Unobserved or isolated pockets [..] such as [..] individual quanta in a symmetrical double-slit experiment, are closed systems which can be demonstrated to evolve deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation"---

          Again, you assume that the content of a system can completely be isolated from any outside influence, which is impossible, as a perfect isolation also would cut off gravity from acting on the quanta. Though the continuous energy exchange by means of which particles preserve and express their properties, keep existing, remain part of the same universe is unobservable, that doesn't mean that we may ignore it. Because macroscopic, classical objects indeed don't seem to display any activity to keep existing, that doesn't mean that quantum objects also are 'dead' things. A fundamental, quantum particle cannot be distinguished from its function, at the same time being the product as well as the source of its interactions. It is their continuous energy exchange which informs (the particles of) a light source about (the spatial distribution of the particles of) the 2-split setup so the source 'knows' where to send photons. This is why no energy is liberated where identical photons 'annihilate' and why the source looses no energy either. Informed about the setup, the source simply doesn't send photons in these directions. So instead of saying that particles "evolve deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation", we can as well say that the Schrödinger equation 'works' because of this exchange. It is this continuous two-way traffic, this alternating flow of energy between them why particles are wave phenomena in the first place, the frequency of the exchange equal to the energy they have according to each other.

          ---"that the closed universe as a whole behaves according to the same rules as individual isolated quanta."---

          Though a universe certainly can be defined as the entirety of objects following the same rules of behavior, laws of physics, outside of it there's nothing with respect to which it can have properties, act in this way or the other.

          ---"we are forced to describe the interaction of subsystems. The question is then, what is the origin and fundamental nature of this partitioning?"---

          If I may replace 'subsystems' with 'particles', then my answer to this question is that the 'subsystems' as they create one another, try out, design each other in such a manner that they can keep existing to each other, that is, 'partition' themselves off each other, at the same time maintaining a physical communication (energy exchange) to be able to remain part of each other's universe. So whereas you seem to accept that the 'subsystems' have some more or less accidental properties they've been provided with at their creation, as if they've passively been created by some outside intervention, to me these properties are as much the source, the cause as the product, the effect of their 'partitioning'. As to professor Hawking's tale, as I argue in my essay, the Big Bang only happened to physics, with all its devastating effects, not in nature. I wonder why nobody cares that his hypothesis doesn't even offer a glimmer of a beginning of an explanation as to the origin of all matter and energy, which suddenly popped up out of nothing, a finite quantity which -despite observations proving this to be untrue- is supposed to remain the same ever after. Who/What determined that particular quantity? Can we really have a beginning if there's nothing with respect to which it can have a beginning? Sure, if a virtual particle pops up together with its counterpart, then these particles see, create and exist to each other at the same time, so they certainly can have a beginning and end. However, the universe as a whole has no such counterpart with respect to which to exist, so we shouldn't treat it as an ordinary object and stubbornly insist that it has a beginning. It is because we regard energy and mass as absolute quantities that we come up with nonsensical assertions about the energy content of the universe, that we regard particles to be only the source of their interactions. Indeed, they would be if they passively have been created by some outside intervention, if we believe in the Big Bang tale. As cannot explain the observed homogeneity and isotropy in the universe, it needs other flawed ideas, like the cosmic inflation, a hypothesis which likewise cannot predict nor prove the rate of inflation, but is set at that value as to yield the desired result. It also offers no mechanism as how the universe may know when to start, what rate to assume and when to stop. As to the 2.8 ° K cosmic background radiation, Hoyle et al. offer an alternative explanation, see Further astrophysical quantities expected in a quasi-steady state Universe, Astron. Astrophys. 289, 729-739 (1994), p 732. This is not to say that we live in Hoyle's steady state universe: like the bigbang universe, it regards the universe as an ordinary object so cannot explain the creation of energy either. The result of all this nonsense is that physics has become entrapped in a vicious circle of delusions, one misconception breeding the other, so a drastic conversion is needed.

          Regards, Anton

          • [deleted]

          [url=http://000site.ru/go.php?sid=9][img]http://classsex.ru/sex/446.jpg[/img][/url]

          [url=http://000site.ru/go.php?sid=9][img]http://opapizda.com/img/1/index.jpg[/img][/url]

          [url=http://000site.ru/go.php?sid=9][img]http://tdq.in/images/1/801.jpg[/img][/url]

          [url=http://bmqksc.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://824-mfkm.baza-mov.info/nujen-li-seks.html]Íóæåí Ëè Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://girls-707.baza-mov.info/]Ìàðèíà Г'ГҐГЄГ± Г"îòî Г'åìèäåñÿòûõ Ìîñêâà[/url]

          [url=http://grdl-net.baza-mov.info/]Êðèâîé Ðîã Ïîðíî[/url]

          [url=http://gbyb.baza-mov.info/blog-mat-uchit.html]ГЊГ ГІГј Г"Г·ГЁГІ Г'ûíà Г'ГҐГЄГ±Гі[/url]

          [url=http://body.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://long-ass.baza-mov.info/tag3.html]Sex Shop Àäðåñ[/url]

          [url=http://adult-gbyh.baza-mov.info/foto-suprujeskaya-para-seks.html]Г"îòî Г'óïðóæåñêàÿ Ïàðà Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://any-scene.baza-mov.info/page4.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± 18ëåò[/url]

          [url=http://120-dqat.anunusik.info/]Ïîðíî Г"èëüìû Ëåñáèÿíêè[/url]

          [url=http://pgdg-female.anunusik.info/seksi-foto-devushek.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ±ГЁ Г"îòî Äåâóøåê[/url]

          [url=http://225-forum.anunusik.info/porno-foto-xxx-erotika-seks.html]Ïîðíî Г"îòî Xxx Ýðîòèêà Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://nude-hzzj.anunusik.info/blog-dolgo-seks.html]Äîëãî Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://lsd-lowly.anunusik.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://www.anunusik.info/]Íåëèäîâû Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://celki-the.anunusik.info/porno-tube-com.html]Porno Tube Com[/url]

          [url=http://raw-958.anunusik.info/blog-pes-ebana.html]ГЏГҐГ± Г...ГЎГ Г­Г [/url]

          [url=http://the-qesy.anunusik.info/porno-zastavki-kartinki.html]Ïîðíî Çàñòàâêè Êàðòèíêè[/url]

          [url=http://baseu.anunusik.info/blog-porno-roliki.html]Ïîðíî Ðîëèêè Äîæäü[/url]

          [url=http://me.anunusik.info/prezentaciya-telki.html]Ïðåçåíòàöèÿ Г'åëêè[/url]

          [url=http://hopwfo.anunusik.info/]Áîëüøèå Г'åêñóàëüíûå Ïîïêè[/url]

          [url=http://woomen.anunusik.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://125-asj.anunusik.info/travesti-sex-video.html]Travesti Sex Video[/url]

          [url=http://wpc-432.anunusik.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://pornushka-black.anunusik.info/tag5.html]Âýá Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://tube-much.anunusik.info/blog-gruppa-tatu.html]Ãðóïïà Г'Г ГІГі Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://fey.anunusik.info/page4.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Êóêëû Íàäóâíûå[/url]

          [url=http://wlgspn.anunusik.info/tag1.html]ГЂГ­Г Г« Àíàëüíûé Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://film-243.anunusik.info/bolshie-naturalnye-o.html]Áîëüøèå Íàòóðàëüíûå Г'ГЁГ±ГјГЄГЁ[/url]

          [url=http://402-sestra.anunusik.info/porno-seks-moskva.html]Ïîðíî Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ìîñêâà[/url]

          [url=http://bodap.anunusik.info/]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ìàìà Èñûí[/url]

          [url=http://dildo-105.anunusik.info/]Ïîðíî Г'ûí Г...ГЎВёГІ Ìàìó[/url]

          [url=http://kww-414.anunusik.info/tag3.html]Sex 7[/url]

          [url=http://fisting-dxw.anunusik.info/semeinye-porno-uw.html]Г'åìåéíûå Ïîðíî Г"îòîãðàôèè[/url]

          [url=http://mfll-smotret.anunusik.info/seks-deutsch-s.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Deutsch[/url]

          [url=http://life-serious.anunusik.info/tag1.html]Ïîðíî Г'ГҐГЄГ± Æåñòîêè[/url]

          [url=http://devushka.anunusik.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          • [deleted]

          [url=http://000site.ru/go.php?sid=9][img]http://classsex.ru/sex/226.jpg[/img][/url]

          [url=http://000site.ru/go.php?sid=9][img]http://opapizda.com/img/8/index.jpg[/img][/url]

          [url=http://000site.ru/go.php?sid=9][img]http://tdq.in/images/1/618.jpg[/img][/url]

          [url=http://quick-rxatq.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://art-cprqw.baza-mov.info/tematicheskii-seks.html]Г'åìàòè÷åñêèé Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://165-zibltj.baza-mov.info/porno-roliki-domashnie-video.html]Ïîðíî Ðîëèêè Äîìàøíèå Âèäåî[/url]

          [url=http://53-wgfzzr.baza-mov.info/tag2.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Âèäåî Ïîñìîòðåòü[/url]

          [url=http://awfy-brat.baza-mov.info/page3.html]ГЉГЁГҐГўГ±ГЄГЁГҐ Г'ГҐГЄГ± Êëóáû[/url]

          [url=http://dyjv.baza-mov.info/tag5.html]Г"îòîìîäåëè Ýðîòèêà Г"îòî[/url]

          [url=http://dqqek.baza-mov.info/blog-mujskoe-zhestkoe.html]Ìóæñêîå Æåñòêîå Ïîðíî[/url]

          [url=http://812-gjaina.baza-mov.info/page4.html]Www Sex Chat Ru[/url]

          [url=http://shorter-spk.baza-mov.info/bolshie-siski-rupics.html]Áîëüøèå Г'ГЁГ±ГјГЄГЁ Rupics[/url]

          [url=http://site-uvb.baza-mov.info/blog-zhivoi-seks.html]Æèâîé Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ðàçãîâîð[/url]

          [url=http://wni-woo.baza-mov.info/sex-ezboard-cgi-db.html]Sex Ezboard Cgi Db[/url]

          [url=http://278-chat.baza-mov.info/]Àíàëüíûé Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ãðóïïîâîé[/url]

          [url=http://jtr.baza-mov.info/video-tyajelyi-seks.html]Г'ÿæåëûé Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://usu.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://fetish-804.baza-mov.info/page4.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Íîâîñèáèð[/url]

          [url=http://980-fvrm.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://feb-foot.baza-mov.info/tag3.html]Ïîðíîãðàôèÿ Äîìà[/url]

          [url=http://popki-eor.baza-mov.info/page1.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ëèøåíèå Äåâñòâåííîñòè Âëàãàëèùà Г"îòî[/url]

          [url=http://yhwy-big.baza-mov.info/rollo-mei-q.html]Ðîëëî ГЊГҐГ© Г'ГҐГЄГ±[/url]

          [url=http://837-jhula.baza-mov.info/video-porno-filmy.html]Ïîðíî Г"èëüìû Êàäðû[/url]

          [url=http://anime.baza-mov.info/video-prosmotr-pornovideo.html]Ïðîñìîòð Ïîðíîâèäåî Ðîëèêîâ[/url]

          [url=http://wgxfc.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://ryne-484.baza-mov.info/tag3.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± ГЌГѕ[/url]

          [url=http://celki-odmmc.baza-mov.info/page4.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Г"îòî Ãåðìàôðîäèòà[/url]

          [url=http://tnqtv-261.baza-mov.info/tag3.html]Ïîðíî Г'ГҐГЄГ± Ìàëåíüêèõ Äåâî÷åê[/url]

          [url=http://fisting-eckgh.baza-mov.info/tag3.html]Ïîðíî Hjkbrb[/url]

          [url=http://expensive.baza-mov.info/gei-porno-q.html]Ãåè Ïîðíî Ìóæèê[/url]

          [url=http://olz-411.baza-mov.info/russkoe-porno-sqf.html]Ðóññêîå Ïîðíî Âèäåî Ðîëèêè[/url]

          [url=http://726-zwt.baza-mov.info/video-estrada-porno.html]Ýñòðàäà Ïîðíî[/url]

          [url=http://535-avi.baza-mov.info/page4.html]Ïîðíî Ãàëåðåè Ãðóïîâîãî Г'ГҐГЄГ±Г [/url]

          [url=http://923-blog.baza-mov.info/]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Èíòåðíåò Г'Гў[/url]

          [url=http://movie-955.baza-mov.info/bezplatnoe-nemeckoe-okz.html]Áåçïëàòíîå Íåìåöêîå Âèäåî[/url]

          [url=http://981-hot.baza-mov.info/seks-karliki-vel.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Êàðëèêè Æåíùèíû[/url]

          [url=http://152-forum.baza-mov.info/tag5.html]Ïîðíî Г"îòî Г'ðàíñâåñòèòîâ[/url]

          [url=http://964-teen.baza-mov.info/tag1.html]Г'ГҐГЄГ± Äàî[/url]

          [url=http://frvqvy-353.baza-mov.info/]Г'ðè Õóÿ[/url]

          [url=http://blogs-ruwow.baza-mov.info/]Г'àìûå Ãðîìàäíûå Г'ГЁГ±ГјГЄГЁ[/url]

          [url=http://269-me.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://streem-mir.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]

          [url=http://984-yes.baza-mov.info/blog-porno-foto.html]Ïîðíî Г"îòî Ìèëàøêè[/url]

          [url=http://sunny-qivln.baza-mov.info/]Ãëàâíàÿ[/url]