THEORY JOURNAL THE REFUGE FOR THE OPEN MINDED VOL . 01 | NO. 01
MINNEAPOLIS, DECEMBER 14, 2017
FREE
THEORY JOURNAL WELCOMES YOU TO...
THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS
EXPLAINING OUR EXISTENCE
DISCOVERING WHO WE ARE
START HERE OUR TOPI CS
GU IDE TO RE ADING
THE THE O RY JO U RNA L STRU CTU RE
We unpack and dissects emergent theories that disrupt
These theories are not presented as truth, but rather
Each edition of the publication focuses its lens
traditional doctrine about life, philosophy, and technology.
ideas to consider, encouraging you to be open-minded.
on one topic area, which is explored in-depth.
01
FEATURED CONTENT
11 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS BY JEFFREY BAUMGARTNER
HISTORY PIECES: A LIBERAL DOCUMENTARY TRANSCRIPT BY FAIR WIND FILMS
THINGS WE LOVE
WHAT IS THIS? Have you heard about Simulation Hypothesis? It is a hypothesis which states that it is highly likely we are living in a sophisticated computer simulation created by more advanced beings, most likely our future (from our perspective) selves. It is as if we were inside a computer game that is so realistic, it is indistinguishable from reality. If the hypothesis is true, it has some mind-blowing implications which are both fun to ponder and provide the brain with a healthy dose of creative exercise. We’ll get into those in a moment. First, a little background. In a nutshell, the simulation hypothesis (also sometimes called the simulation theory and the simulation argument) states that it will even-
2
TECHNICAL TALK Digitalized and Pixelized
3
PLATO GETS IT! Alegory of the Cave
4
tually be possible for us to replicate the human mind in software code. By the time this is possible, advances in computer processing power, memory and storage will be so great that it will possible to create software programs complete with simulated worlds and simulated people with simulated minds. The simulation hypothesis states that if creating such simulations is possible and relatively inexpensive, than it is probably that our future selves (or other beings) would create many such simulations. Statistically, if there is only one reality and many simulations (each of which is indistinguishable from reality), it is more likely that we are living in a simulation than in reality.
QUANTUM STUFF Bits of Matter Change
6
EINSTEIN WRONG?! 5 Smart Men
8
NEWEST IDEAS Modern Supporters
11 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS
BY JEFFREY BAUMGARTNER
N O V. 9, 2 0 1 6
Alternatively, maybe the you in reality is copied multiple times in this simulation, but each copy has significant diferences. You might exist as an American innovation consultant, a German politician, a Nigerian teacher, a Japanese baby and a Russian soldier, for instance. Each of them different, but each of them based on the software code of you. Or, let’s take this a little further. Perhaps this entire simulation is built upon simulating a single mind − yours − and creating seven billion variants of your mind. In other words, every single person in this simulation is, in fact, you. If it is possible for our future selves to create simulations, this model is also entirely possible.
1 IT AIN’T THE MATRIX
When the press writes about the simulation hypothesis, they often cite the film The Matrix to illustrate the hypothesis. However, The Matrix is something a little different. If you have seen the film, you will know that it is about a reality in which the entire human race is plugged into a vast computer and living in a simulation controlled by an evil computer. In fact, simulations have been explored by science fiction writers, and with more creativity, for years. Arthur Clarke’s The Lion of Comarre, for example, was written in 1949. But I digress. The Matrix describes a direct connection between living people and virtual people. Every living person is plugged into the “Matrix” and has a corresponding virtual self. Thus, breaking out of the “Matrix” would imply that those plugged in would become conscious and revert to living in the real world. However, the Simulation Hypothesis does not suggest that we are all plugged into a Matrix or computer dreaming a single shared reality. Rather, it implies that human minds are copied by highly sophisticated computers, and converted into software code. The software code is living in the simulations while the real people live in the real world. Moreover, individuals, in the form of software code, could and probably would exist in multiple simulations. If we are living in such a simulation and somehow manage to break out of it, you and I (as software code in this simulation) would cease to exist. However, copies of us might well continue to exist in other simulations and the real us would hopefully exist in reality − which I define as being biological beings in the physical universe.
2
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD
You may not exist in reality. You may simply be an artificial creation that exists only in this simulation. Perhaps we are in a simulation that explores human breeding or evolution by creating artificial gene combination. So, if the simulation stops, there would be no corresponding you in the real world. You really would cease to exist. Alternatively, maybe the you in reality is copied multiple times in this simulation, but each copies has significant diferences. You might exist as an American innovation consultant, a German politician, a Nigerian teacher, a Japanese baby and a Russian soldier, for instance. Each of them different, but each of them based on the software code of you. Or, let’s take this a little further. Perhaps this entire simulation is built upon simulating a single mind − yours − and creating seven billion variants of your mind. In other words, every single person in this simulation is, in fact, you. If it is possible for our future selves to create simulations, this model is also entirely possible.
4
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD
Or, you may not exist in reality. You may simply be an artificial creation that exists only in this simulation. Perhaps we are in a simulation that explores human breeding or evolution by creating artificial gene combination. So, if the simulation stops, there would be no corresponding you in the real world. You really would cease to exist. 02
3
PURPOSE
The simulation hypothesis proposes creating simulations is so easy that there are probably many simulations running. Nevertheless, it is likely that every simulation has some kind of purpose. Our simulation could be some kind of study. Perhaps a what-if study. Perhaps in the real world, the Nazis won World War II and this simulation is to study how so-
T H E S I M U L AT I O N H Y P OT H E S I S
MINI SEGMENT
TECHNICAL TALKS DIGITAL BIG BANG BIG BANG EXPLAINED : From the materialist view that our universe is all there is, as an objective independent reality, the fact that the Big Bang came from nothing is very hard to explain. OKAY OBVIOUSLY : Nearly all scientists agree that our universe began to exist at one point in the distant past.
HOW CAN EVERYTHING COME FROM NOTHING??? VIRTUAL BOOT UP : Virtual worlds always begin with an information influx from a zero state, since they need to initially boot up. Every time a computer game starts up, a big bang occurs from the perspective of the game. FLIP THE SWITCH : From inside the virtual world itself, the creation always comes from nothing. Because before it boots up, there is no space or time which is defif ififi ned by the rules of that virtual world.
GLOBAL PARAMETERS STORAGE SPACE : High matter concentrations in our universe may constitute a high processing demand, such that massive objects would slow down the information processing of space-time. Similar to the way that high data demands in a computer will slow down the processing speed.
NOTHING CAN TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT! T E C H TA L K
ciety might have developed had the Nazis lost. Perhaps climate change got completely out of hand, the Earth has become largely unlivable and the creators of the simulation are living in miserable conditions, so they create simulations in order to be in a better place. If so, this would be another reason not to want to break out of the simulation. The real world may be far worse than the simulated one. Perhaps aliens have landed on a burnt out Earth that was destroyed by nuclear war, the sun going nova or a collision with a massive asteroid. Using remains and DNA, the aliens have reconstructed humans in this simulation in order to understand us. Perhaps some kid was playing around with his mother’s computer, created this simulation and then forgot about us.
5
WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CREATED 10 MINUTES AGO
It is very possible that this simulation was created just 10 minutes ago. However, we were created with memories of our pasts and our world was created with evidence of having existed for billions of years. Likewise, the simulation might end in 10 minutes and we would never know it. We would suddenly cease to exist. So, you should probably read quickly to ensure you can take in this entire article!
02
GREEKY GUYS
THE GREEKISH QUESTION
MATERIALISM OR IDEALISM
PLATO
IDEALISM
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF GREEK PHILOSOPHIES T H AT S H O W E A R LY T H I N K I N G O F T H E SIMUL ATION HYPOTHESIS.
THE CAVE
GREEK PHILOSOPHER
ALEGORY OF THE CAVE PLATO
A BASIC SUMMARY: Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners’ reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison; for they know no better life.
DEMOCRITUS MATERIALISM
*
428 - 348 BCE
460 - 370 BC GREEK PHILOSOPHER
03 PLATO VS. DEMOCRITUS
A
IF YOU FOLLOW IDEALISM YOU: Believe that consiousness is primary and gives rise to all physical matter and process. In much the same way as when you dream, your mind is creating a physical experience while you sleep.
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS
WTF
IDEALISM PLATO IDEALISM PHILOSOPHY : Idealism is built off of the assumption that the basic underlying structure of everything isn’t the atom, but abstract mental forms that determine an object’s properties.
B
MATERIALISM DEMOCRITUS
IF YOU FOLLOW MATERIALISM YOU: Believe that consiousness is a product of physical processes in the brain. This is the philosophical assumption that Isaac Newton & Charles D-arwin & most western scientists until very recently, built there work on.
MATERIALISM PHILOSOPHY : Materialism is built off of the assumption that atoms are: ETERNAL INDESTRUCTIBLE THE ONLY THINGS THAT REALLY EXIST All other things exist, only because they are composed of atoms.
1 1 I M P L I C AT I O N S
&
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE:
DR. WHITEWORTH: Took the two opposing views as well as the simulation hypothesis, and after a thorough analysis, his conclusion was that the data much better fits the hypothesis. Scientifically, our universe simply makes more sense when viewed as a virtual construct emerging from consiousness, rather than simply matter existing independently of mind.
03
FOCUS : : : WAVES OF POTENTIAL
WTF?!? DOES MAT TER EXIST
BEYOND OUR OBSERVATION?
Prior to observation, matter does not seem to exist. Matter seems to be an interaction between consciousness and waves of potential. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in ever-more detailed versions of the double-split experiment, from the 1920s right up to the present.
(QUANTUM STUFF) SLIT EXPERIMENTS
HOW PARTICLES BEHAVE
To understand the double split experiment we first need to know how particles behave. Objects fired through two slits make clump patterns, but waves fired through two slits make an interference pattern.
PARTICLE: ONE SLIT
PARTICLE: TWO SLIT
WAVES: ONE SLIT
WAVES: TWO SLIT
If we shoot small objects at a detector, we will see a clump pattern where they came through the slit and impacted.
If we add a second slit, we would expect to see a second clumping duplicated to the right.
Now, let’s look at waves. The waves go through the slit and radiate out striking the back wall with the most intensity directly in line with the slit. The line of brightness shown on the back screen show that intensity. This is similar to the clump pattern.
But when we add the second slit something different happens. When the top of one wave meets the bottom of another, they interfere and cancel each other out. This results in an interference pattern on the back wall. Where the waves reinforce each other, they are at the highest intensity with bright lines, and where they cancel each other out, there is nothing.
TWO SLIT: PARTICLE RESULT
TWO SLIT: WAVE RESULT
S O W H EN W E F IRE O B JE CTS THRO U GH T WO SLITS, WE GET T WO C LUMP PAT TE RNS. B U T WITH WAVE S, WE GE T AN IN T ER F ER EN CE PAT TE RN.
04
T H E S I M U L AT I O N H Y P OT H E S I S
WAVES OF POTENTIAL
ELECTRON: ONE SLIT
NORMAL
An electron can be seen as a very small bit of matter. And when a stream of electrons is fired through one slit they behave like small objects forming a single clump pattern.
ELECTRON: TWO SLIT
ONE ELECTRON AT A TIME
ABNORMAL
WEIRD
So if we fire these bits of matter through two slits, we should get two clump patterns. But we don’t, we get an interference pattern. We fired particles through but we get a pattern like they’re waves, not like little objects. How can pieces of matter create an interference pattern like waves? It doesn’t make sense.
At first, physicists thought the electrons were bouncing off of each other to create this interference pattern. So in 1961, Klaus Johnson modified the expirment to fire the electrons through one at at a time. This way, there is no possibility of them bumping into and interfering one another. But again, the interference pattern was seen. Physicists were perplexed by this.
MEASURING DEVICE
INSANE!!!
WARNING!!! THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS COMPLETELY UNSOLVED AND FRICKIN’ INSANE. BARE WITH US.
So they further modified the expiriment to get to the bottom of the mystery. They put a measuring device at one slit to see which one the particle actually went through. But, when the electrons were being this closely observed, they went back to behaving like little objects and produced a clump pattern not an interference pattern. Somehow, the act of observation meant they only went through one slit, not both. The electrons seemed to decide how to behave based on if they were aware of being watched. How could this possible be the case? Could the presence of a conscious observer be influencing the expiriment?
(1978) WHEELER’S EXPERIMENT
THE DELAYED CHOICE In 1978, physicist John Wheeler proposed a new way of doing the double-slit experiment that might finally reveal what’s really happening. He proposed what is called the delayed choice experiment, in which the decision of whether or not to observe the particles isn’t made until after they have gone through the slits, but before they have impacted the detector. The results of the expirement didn’t solve the mystery. Instead, it got even stranger... because what was found was that at the moment of decision to observe, the waves became particles. And not only that, but they actually made record of themselves as having traveled through the slits as particles. Yes, you heard me. Deciding to run the observed expirement, causes the waves to become particles and this causal force extends backwards in time. Running the expirment unobserved does not cause this effect.
LIGHT TRAVELS THROUGH DOUBLE SLITS AS WAVES.
WAVES PAST SLIT BUT HAVEN’T HIT THE WALL.
THE SCIENTIST’S EYES ARE CLOSED.
AND THEN.... THE SCIENTIST’S EYES OPEN.
WAVES BECOME PARTICLES AND FORCE EXTENDS BACKWARDS IN TIME . . .
WTF?!? EXPERIMENTS
M AT T E R L I T E R A L LY C H A N G E S FORM WHEN HIS EYES OPEN!!! T H E D E L AY E D C H O I C E
05
6
7
MAYBE YOU WERE DIFFERENT YESTERDAY The closest thing we have to simulations in our world today is probably massive multiplayer online games (MMOG). The people who run MMOGs and their worlds tend to tweak and improve their platforms regularly. It is therefore likely that those who run our simulation do the same thing. They may continuously improve the platform in which we exist. Perhaps you feel love or anger more strongly today than you did yesterday because the coding associated with emotions has been tweaked. If the purpose of the simulation is a study, it is possible that there have been greater changes on a regular basis. Maybe yesterday, you were starving and living on the streets. Maybe you were the richest person in the world. Today, you are someone completely different. This change might have been made to study how such changes in your circumstances change your personality. So, why don’t you notice? Because your memory has also been changed to correspond with the changes. You may have been a famous artist yesterday. Today you are you and you have a new set of memories based on who you are today.
MINI SEGMENT
TECH TALKS CONT. CODING IMAGES RELIGION
Most religions state that God (or several gods) created us. If we exist in a simulation created by our advanced selves, our advanced selves are effectively our God. But do not worry, if you are a believer. Our real selves are presumably the creation of your God.
8
NOT HUMAN
COMPUTING : Every digital symbol created by the same program is identical to every other in the same class. In computing terms, objects are simply ‘instances’ of a general class. OBJECTS : While the object that we see in our real world have individual properties, the quantum bits they are all built from are all pressed from identical molds. The simulation hypothesis suggests that this is the case because each bit is created by the same program.
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
The beings who created this simulation might not be future humans. They might be something else entirely. Perhaps in the real world, intelligence evolved in the cat family rather than the primate family. One day, a cat-being student decided to run a simulation to study what the world would be like if intelligence arose in the primate family. The cat beings might even find the results humorous. Our life style might be a complete joke to them. Alternatively, perhaps beings so radically different from us, we cannot imagine them, created the simulation as an experiment of some kind.
ALL TOGETHER : All of this might constitute what the courts refer to as ’sufficient weight of evidence’ favoring idealism and the simulation hypothesis over materialism. Which coincidences continue to pile up, and combine with explanatory power, it presents a very strong plausibility argument, or even a proof.
WE PREFER IDEALISM. . .
SMART MEN’S THINKING
A SUPER BRIEF HISTORY FIVE SMART MEN
1
ALBERT EINSTEIN QUANTUM MECHANICS
4 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS: Established the photon as the particle associated with light. Mathematically proved the existence of atoms. Special theory of relativity, motion can affect the passage of time. E=MC squared, fundamental relationship between matter and energy.
WHY
&
1927 SOLVAY CONFERENCE: Was held to solve these new problems in defining the properties and behavior of photons and electrons. After the conference Einstein began work on what he called a “unified field theory” that would eliminate the need for quantum mechanics and fully explain all of the weird phenomenans that were being observed.
UNIFIED FIELD THEORY: Basically, he continued to reject quantum theory and spend the rest of his life working on his unified field theory. He eventually passed away and was unable to salvage materialism. So him and Bohr’s conflict was unresolved. So who was right?!?
SMART MEN CONT.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE:
QUANTUM SHIT IS COOL: For materialism to be true, and for the world to exist independently of mind, the concept of locality is necessary. This means that for objects to interact, they must be in close proximity. To understand quantum entanglement and nonlocality, we should take a look at the development of quantum mechanics.
06
AHEAD OF HIS TIME: This was the man who had written 4 groundbreaking scientific papers in a single year. He explained why the sky is blue, what makes the sun shine, how acceleration through space can slow down time, he overturned Newton’s theory of gravity, and many, many more accomplishments.
2
BASICALLY HE DISCOVERED EINSTEIN AND PUT HIM IN COLLEGE Einstein got into the University of Zurich.
MAX PLANCK THEO. PHYSICIST GREATEST THEORETICAL PHYSICIST IN EUROPE AT THE TIME (1905-ISH)
3
BOHR’S ATOMIC MODEL: A positively charged nucleus is orbited by negatively charged electrons, and these electron orbits have very specific energy levels that are quantized.
NEILS BOHR PHYSICS PROFESSOR
1913: He introduced a conceptual model for the workings of the atom and it’s still the one taught today.
RECIEVED HIS PHD BY AGE 26.
T H E S I M U L AT I O N H Y P OT H E S I S
T E C H TA L K
PLANCK FOUND EINSTEIN
NESTED SIMUL ATIONS
Or, perhaps our simulation was created by beings in a more advanced simulation and, once we become advanced enough, we will create simulations. Stretch this concept, and one can imagine a near infinite series of nested simulations, each created by a more advanced simulation. Perhaps the series is infinite. Perhaps biological beings have never existed except in simulations in a universe that is pure information rather than physical planets, stars, galaxies and everything else we believe comprises the universe.
ATOMIC MODEL
10
04
11
DISAPPEARING
Engineers tend to strive for efficiency. And there would probably not be much point in maintaining parts of the simulation devoid of people. Close your wardrobe door and maybe the inside of it disappears. Open it and it reappears. Stand in front of the bathroom mirror and look at yourself. Turn your back to the mirror and it might disappear along with your reflection. Ride a boat across the ocean and it is possible that beneath the ocean surface is nothing. What is the point of simulating it if no one is there to see it? But dive into the ocean and the simulation recreates it.
THE TRUTH DOESN’T MAT TER In most respects, whether or not we are in a simulation does not much matter. If we are in a simulation, it is so effective it is indistinguishable from the real world. As a result, it is our real world and we should make the best of it.
PHYSICIST
1885 - 1962 PHYSICIST
HEISENBERG
1901 - 1976 THEO. PHYSICIST
SCHRODINGER NONLOCALITY
EINSTEIN THEORETICAL PHYSICIST
1858 - 1947
BOHR
MATRIX MECHANICS
9
THE MEN
1887 - 1961 PHYSICIST
“NO PROBLEM CAN BE SOLVED FROM 1879 - 1955 THE SAME LEVEL OF CONSIOUSNESS UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH THAT CREATED IT.”
BUT
4
WERNER HEISENBERG
“MATRIX MECHANICS” : In 1925 he described atoms not as actual physical objects, but as mathematical matrices that evolve over time.
SMART PHYSICISTS
MATRIX MECHANICS RADICAL STUFF : Neils Bohr accepted Werner Heisenberg’s ideas as valid, but most other physicists, including Einstein, thought of them as something of a fad that would fade away once a better theory was found.
5
& ERWIN SCHRODINGER NONLOCALITY
“WAVE MECHANICS” : In 1926 he wrote a paper introducing “wave mechanics” as an alternative to Heisenberg’s “matr.ix mechanics”. NONLOCALITY : Claimed that two particles could be “entangled”, and that they would behave as one system, as one thing
mind you, even if they were separated in space. This meant that any interaction with, observation or measurement of one of the entangled particles would cause an instantaneous effect in the other, even at great distance across space, up to and including infinite distance in space.
1 1 I M P L I C AT I O N S
PEOPLE WERE FIGHTING:
THE OLD AND THE YOUNG: For the majority of physicists, who were after all completely invested in a materialist view of the universe, this was truly unacceptable, and simply could not be true, even if all the equations worked. They just needed to put their heads together and figure out what was really going on with this new-fangled wave and matrix mechanics. Einstein took particular interest in this problem because it was he who had let the genie out of the bottle with his photon and the quantum theory of light.
07
THE IDEA CONTINUES
MODERN SUPPORTERS SMART MEN CONT.
A
1 OF THE 3 ARE TRUE
NICK BOSTROM PHILOSOPHER
A TRILEMMA : In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called “the simulation argument”. Despite the name, Bostrom’s “simulation argument” does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom’s trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true.
1. WE CAN’T MAKE A SIMULATION 2. WE DON’T WANT TO MAKE A SIMULATION 3. WE ALREADY MADE A SIMULATION
B
ELON BELIEVES THIS IS THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR US BEING IN A SIMULATION ALREADY : 40 years ago, we had Pong, two rectangles and a dot… That is what games were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it’s getting better every year.
ELON MUSK INVENTOR
And soon we’ll have virtual reality, augmented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality.
1
WE CAN’T MAKE IT
The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero.
1 OF THE 3 ARE TRUE
2
WE DON’T WANT TO MAKE IT
The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero.
3
WE ALREADY MADE IT
The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
“THERE’S A ONE IN BILLIONS CHANCE WE’RE IN BASE REALITY.” - ELON MUSK
PHOTO CREDITS 01, 02, 04
03
PORTRAITS
Harmonia Macrocosmica (Colored Plates) A R T I S T : Andreas Cellarius P U B L I S H E R : Johannes Janssonius
Allegory of the Cave (Diagram) O R I G I N A L L O C A T I O N : Great Dialogues of Plato P U B L I S H E R : Warmington and Rouse, eds. New York, Signet Classics: 1999
A B O U T : Throughout the publication, major contributers are showcased through a photograph. S E N S I B I L I T Y : The photographs are chosen based on clarity and point of view.
NOTES & TRINKETS
RESEARCH & LIFESTYLE RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL READING ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? By Nick Bostrom Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) pp. 243-255
WEIRDEST UFO SIGHTING
“I HEARD A DEAFENING SOUND
S E P T. 8 2 0 1 7
FROM ABOVE, LOOKED UP, AND
CODE
CAN YOU GUESS OUR NEXT ISSUE’S TOPIC?
WEST ELM, MN
SAW A SMALL GLOWING ORB.”
WHAT ARE THE ODDS WE ARE LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? By Joshua Rothman The New Yorker, June 9, 2016
NEWEST MOST INTERESTING SIGHTING Submitted by James Stretcher
23 21 04 26 08 15
SUBSCRIBE
THE TEAM
MEET
WANT TO RECIEVE PREMIER ISSUES BY MAIL? Contact us at : teschandchek@gmail.com Or Call in at : 651 983 2792
RACHEL TESCH Designer, Content Manager
JAN. 2, 2017
WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE TOPICS? We have a YouTube channel! Subscribe to us at Theory Journal MPLS
PAUL HUDACHEK Typographer, Editor
23 12 16 08
CLUE G
10
ONCE A QUARTER. SUBSCRIBERS MEET OVER COCKTAILS TO SHARE
THE GOOSE EGG
DRINKS, NEWS, AND THEORIES.