Category Archives: phe-nomenon | 本體現象

眾害取其輕 10.1

Posted on by

The least of all evils, 10 | 地獄之路 3.2 | Good intentions 3.2

這段改編自 2021 年 12 月 15 日的對話。

.

在那愚善的年代，我受到誤導，以為：

1. 有問題一定要解決。

錯。

2. 「難受」一定要避免。

錯。

3. 任何情況下，都要避免自己或他人的難受。

錯。

這三句也十分荒謬。

.

在 2010 年我發現，正確的講法應該是，眾害取其輕；意思是，有時那些「害」可以零，有時不可以；未必受你主觀的控制。

可以稱得為「害」的，一定會令你十分慘。所以，「眾害取其輕」亦稱「眾慘取其輕」。凡事選「害處最小」、「慘情最細」的那一條路。

留意，「最小」不代表「很小」；「最小」仍然可以「很大」，視乎情境而定。例如，富人甲、乙、丙，分別有財產一千億元、一千億減一元 和 一千億減二元。三人之中，丙的財產是「最少」，只有一千億減二元；但仍然是「很多」。

.

為什麼「害」或「慘」，有時不可以零呢？

因為雖然眾多選項中，你選哪一個，是你主觀的決定，但是，那「眾多選項」中，有沒有「零害之選」，有時是外在客觀的現實，不受你左右。

如果在當時的情境，某個選擇已是「害處最小」，那就唯有推持，因為，如果你移除那「最小的害」，你就必然換上「更大之惡」。例如，通常而言，「上班」是苦，但「不上班」更慘。兩害相權取其輕，選「上班」。

然後，從「上班」這選擇中，內部再作「眾害取其輕」；即是在你眾多可能的工作中，選慘情最小的那一份。那可能是你當時的職位，亦可能不是。

.

「眾害之最輕」有時可以零，有時不可以零。你只能客觀面對，不能主觀判斷。換句話說，「眾害之最輕」不一定「可以零」，亦不一定「不可以零」。

記住，主觀意願不成理據。任何人在，沒有足夠理據的情況下，認為某事選擇的「眾害之最輕」必為零，或者認為「眾害之最輕」必不為零，都是狂妄；要麼是蠢，要麼是壞，通常又蠢又壞。

.

不可為零的眾害之最輕，簡稱「必要之惡」。

愚善的人往往認為，任何情況下，任何人的任何痛苦，都可以驅除，或應該驅除。他們移除「必要之惡」時，引發「不必要之惡」，帶來更大的痛苦。例如，移除工作之痛，卻換來捱餓之苦。

又例如，任何學問，必有必須背誦的地方。但是，竟然有人提倡「背誦是苦，所以應該只需要理解，而毋須背誦」。我年輕時錯信這點，誤了學業。正確的取向是：

1. 理解後背誦

2. 有用的東西就背

3. 無用的東西就不背

.

愚賤之人的邪惡，則是另一個極端。他們認為，任何情況下，痛苦都無可避免。

以「眾害取其輕」為名，把「不必要之惡」標籤為「必要之惡」，讓自己及他人承受著大量，不必要的痛苦。

…

— Me@2022.09.24 10:56:23 AM

.

.

2022.09.25 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

烹飪事實

Posted on by

這段改編自 2021 年 12 月 14 日的對話。

.

費曼與他的太太（琳）有一個協定，盡力不向對方說謊。

琳不幸患上當時的絕症（肺結核）。家人叫費曼暫時不要，將消息告訴琳。家人在場時，費曼對琳謊稱「沒有事」。

但是，家人離開後，費曼即向琳講出實情。琳的第一反應是傷感，但不是因為知道，自己身患不治之症；亦不是因為知道，費曼欺騙了她；而是因為，她覺得費曼剛才被迫講大話，十分委屈。

.

即使是「善意謊言」，也不應使用，除非當刻實在迫不得已：真話會令人嚴重受傷，甚至死亡；然後，稍後如果事主的情況安全許可，你就在最短時間內，還原真相給他。

「善意謊言」的最大問題是，「善意」不代表「善行」，更不代表「善果」。到病人最終知道真相時，只加倍傷心。

謊言如借錢，最終必須連本帶利地歸還。謊言不如借錢，因為金錢欠債，可以透過還錢來化解；但是，誠信有損，沒有任何方法修補。

他日你公佈好消息時，病人也不會相信，因為，她仍會覺得，你只是安慰她，不是講真相。

.

往地獄之路，往往由善意建築而成的；往天堂之路，則是由善行。

好樹結好果。帶來「善果」的，才是「善行」。

.

愛情上，那些原為了避免，引起誤會的所謂「善意謊言」，往往會觸發，更大的誤會。

典型例子有，你去見一位異性老朋友，與她聚舊。雖然只是見朋友，但為免令女朋友誤會，你不告訴她。

到你女朋友發現時，她會質疑，你為何不知會她。明明是光明正大的活動，卻因為所謂的「善意謊言」，而變得不明不白。

然後，你女朋友再會猜想，你還有什麼其他事項隱瞞呢？

你一個所謂「善意謊言」，引致無窮盡的誤會。

.

正確的相處技巧是，毋須技巧；如實相告便是。

「我明日下午見，一位異性老朋友。你一同去嗎？」

你女朋友反而會放心，因為，她知道你的政策是「有嗰句，講嗰句」。

.

你可以包裝事實，令人聽得舒適一點。包裝了的事實，恰尚好處的話，仍然可以是真相。但你不可以歪曲事實，形成假相。

正如，你可以烹飪食物，令其成熟；亦可以為其加調味料。但是，你不可以下毒。

— Me@2022-06-12 01:08:49 PM

.

.

2022.06.13 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Dynamical pictures

Posted on by

Comparison of pictures

The Heisenberg picture is closest to classical Hamiltonian mechanics (for example, the commutators appearing in the above equations directly correspond to classical Poisson brackets). The Schrödinger picture, the preferred formulation in introductory texts, is easy to visualize in terms of Hilbert space rotations of state vectors, although it lacks natural generalization to Lorentz invariant systems. The Dirac picture is most useful in nonstationary and covariant perturbation theory, so it is suited to quantum field theory and many-body physics.

Summary comparison of evolutions

— Wikipedia on Dynamical pictures

.

.

2022.04.05 Tuesday ACHK

EPR paradox, 11.1

Posted on by

Black hole information paradox, 2.2.1

.

superposition

~ lack of the existence of measuring device in the definition of the experimental setup to define the difference between microscopic events in terms of the difference between observable physical events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

.

Note that superposition is mathematical, not physical. A wave function is not probabilities, nor a physical wave. Superposition applies only to wave functions, not to probabilities, nor to physical realities.

If superposition had been of probabilities or of physical realities, there would have been no interference patterns in the double-slit experiment.

— Me@2022-02-11 03:32:47 PM

.

For example, in the double-slit experiment, if no detector is installed, the system is in a quantum superposition state.

It is not that each individual photon is in a superposition, because an individual particle has no 100% objective identity, due to the indistinguishability of identical particles. Instead, it is that the system of the whole experimental setup is in a superposition.

This applies also to other more complicated experimental setups, such the EPR experiment, the delayed-choice experiment, the delayed-choice quantum eraser, etc.

— Me@2021-01-23 12:57 AM

— Me@2022-02-11 03:29 PM

.

physical definition

~ define the microscopic events in terms of observable physical phenomena such as the change of readings of the measuring device

~ define unobservable events in terms of observable events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

.

a definite state

~ an eigenstate

~ a state that has given a physical definition

— Me@2022-02-11 01:19:57 PM

.

What we do in the present does not change the past, but changes we can see/say about the past. — Wheeler on Delayed choice quantum eraser, paraphrased, Me@2018-02-04 03:40:27 PM

Physics is not about reality, but about what one can say about reality. — Bohr, paraphrased

Physics should deduce what an observer would observe, not what it really is, for that would be impossible. — Me@2018-02-02 12:15:38 AM

It is because, tautologically, any state that cannot be physically defined is logically and physically meaningless.

In other words, any state that has no distinguishing observable effects does not make sense. For example, if in a double-slit experiment, no detector is allowed, then it is no point to label the state either as “go-left” or as “go-right”. Instead, we have to label the state as a superposition state.

Some unobservable (aka microscopic) variables are meaningless. It is not because of any philosophical points of view, but because we have not defined those variables in terms of observables or observable events, aka physical phenomena. In other words, those variables have no physical definitions yet.

— Me@2022-02-11 03:50:59 PM

.

Quantum mechanics, and physics in general, gives the rules of storytelling about reality. A story is a post hoc description of a physical event. In other words, quantum mechanics, and physics in general, is about phenomena, not noumena.

phenomenon (plural phenomena)

~ thing appearing to view

~ reality with respect to an observer

noumenon (plural noumena)

~ thing-in-itself

~ reality independent of any observers

— Me@2022-02-11 3:00 PM

.

.

2022.02.11 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Spinoza 3.2

Posted on by

對牛彈琴 2.2 | 數學教育 6.2 | 大世界 7.2

.

Intellect is invisible to those have none.

— Arthur Schopenhauer

.

A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand.

— p.83

— Chapter XI. Socrates

— A History of Western Philosophy (1945)

— Bertrand Russell

.

（安：根據羅素的講法，有很多人學習深奧學問時，所謂的「明白」，未必是真正的明白，因為他們會不自覺地，把那些新知識，翻譯成自己明白的版本；即是夾硬用，舊知識的語言，以理解新知識。Paul Graham 說在小時候，曾經用這個方法，去學習數學；即是將數學概念，翻譯成日常生活的概念。）

.

他真的有講過嗎？

.

（安：我記得是。當然，我可以記錯。但是，有沒有講過，或者誰講過，並不是重點。重要的是，那些講法，有沒有道理。

後來他發現，學數學其實不應，用這個方法。其實，學其他專業，也應先破除，翻譯和簡化等習慣。

有些新概念是，純粹用一堆舊概念組裝而成，就可以用這個方法。但是，如果一個新概念中，有一些全新，即前無古人的元素時，翻譯必然有誤，理解一定有錯。堅持用舊世界的語言，去理解新天地，只會阻礙你，心靈的進化。

Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.

— Baruch Spinoza

.

另外，他提的另一個，有關學習數學的要點是，即使假設你在大學中，學到的數學，在日常生活中沒有用，單單是為獲取，那些嶄新的元素概念本身，就已經能夠令你有超能力；令你有一些，常人沒有的思考工具、比喻語言。）

— Me@2022-02-03 12:09:36 PM

.

.

2022.02.04 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

A Whole New World

Posted on by

嶄新的世界 5 | Extraordinary, 3

.

Do not ask your children to strive for extraordinary lives. Such striving may seem admirable, but it is the way of foolishness. Help them instead to find the wonder and the marvel of an ordinary life. Show them the joy of tasting tomatoes, apples and pears. Show them how to cry when pets and people die. Show them the infinite pleasure in the touch of a hand. And make the ordinary come alive for them. The extraordinary will take care of itself.

— William Martin

.

I can show you the world
Shining, shimmering, splendid
Tell me, princess, now when did
You last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes
Take you wonder by wonder
Over, sideways and under
On a magic carpet ride

A whole new world
A new fantastic point of view
No one to tell us, “No”
Or where to go
Or say we’re only dreaming

— Aladdin’s A Whole New World

.

.

2022.01.24 Monday ACHK

超時空接觸 3

Posted on by

相聚零刻 1.1.2 | 大世界 10

這段改編自 2021 年 12 月 4 日的對話。

.

自己的世界，以自己為中心，並不是「自我中心」；

要求別人的世界，也以你自己為中心，才是「自我中心」。

.

地球人竟然會，因為所謂的「失戀」，而不太開心。部分原因是，他自我中心；覺得世界必定要跟他，心目中的劇本來運行。例如：「她是我期待已久的夢中情人，所以，她必定是我，命中注定的未來太太。」

萬一，其實是通常，受到「夢中情人」拒絶的話，他就會覺得，失去了「命中注定的未來太太」，人生就再沒大意義了。

.

合理的想法是：「她是我期待已的夢中情人，所以，她有可能是我，命中注定的未來太太。如果不是的話，我仍然會欣賞她，但是，我的注意力，就不再在她身上，而會轉移到（尋找）我的未來太太。我只愛我未來太太一人。」

如果你再，明戀暗戀（肯定不是你未來太太的）其他人的話，那就，是為不忠。

.

你覺得的夢中情人，不一定是你的未來太太——真正的夢中情人。誰是你「真正的夢中情人」，不會未卜先知。誰是你的「未來太太」，只會未來先知。所以，所謂的「命中注定」，只能事後講，馬後砲。

— Me@2022-01-23 11:34:20 PM

.

Your world is your world.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein

.

你的主觀世界，並不是客觀世界的全部。

— Me@2009.09.16

.

.

2022.01.24 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.4.2

Posted on by

Logical arrow of time, 6.1.2

.

The source of the macroscopic time asymmetry, aka the second law of thermodynamics, is the difference between prediction and retrodiction.

In a prediction, the deduction direction is the same as the physical/observer time direction.

In a retrodiction, the deduction direction is opposite to the physical/observer time direction.

.

— guess —

If a retrodiction is done by a time-opposite observer, he will see the entropy increasing. For him, he is really making a prediction.

— guess —

.

— Me@2013-10-25 3:33 AM

.

A difference between deduction and observation is that in observation, the probability is updated in real time.

.

each update time interval ~ infinitesimal

.

In other words, when you observe a system, you get new information about that system in real time.

Since you gain new knowledge of the system in real time, the probability assigned to that system is also updated in real time.

— Me@2020-10-13 11:27:59 AM

.

.

2020.12.04 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 7

Posted on by

When we imagine that we know and keep track of all the exact information about the physical system – which, in practice, we can only do for small microscopic physical systems – the microscopic laws are time-reversal-symmetric (or at least CPT-symmetric) and we don’t see any arrow. There is a one-to-one unitary map between the states at times “t1” and “t2” and it doesn’t matter which of them is the past and which of them is the future.

A problem is that with this microscopic description where everything is exact, no thermodynamic concepts such as the entropy “emerge” at all. You might say that the entropy is zero if the pure state is exactly known all the time – at any rate, a definition of the entropy that would make it identically zero would be completely useless, too. By “entropy”, I never mean a quantity that is allowed to be zero for macroscopic systems at room temperature.

But whenever we deal with incomplete information, this one-to-one map inevitably disappears and the simple rules break down. Macroscopic laws of physics are irreversible. If friction brings your car to a halt and you wait for days, you won’t be able to say when the car stopped. The information disappears: it dissipates.

— The arrow of time: understood for 100 years

— Lubos Motl

.

If there is a god-view, there is no time arrow.

Time arrow only exists from a macroscopic point of view. Microscopically, there is no time arrow.

If there is a god-view that can observe all the pieces of the exact information, including the microscopic ones, there is no time arrow.

—

Also, if there is a god-view, there will be paradoxes, such as the black hole information paradox.

Black hole complementarity is a conjectured solution to the black hole information paradox, proposed by Leonard Susskind, Larus Thorlacius, and Gerard ‘t Hooft.

…

Leonard Susskind proposed a radical resolution to this problem by claiming that the information is both reflected at the event horizon and passes through the event horizon and cannot escape, with the catch being no observer can confirm both stories simultaneously.

— Wikipedia on Black hole complementarity

The spirit of black hole complementarity is that there is no god-view. Instead, physics is always about what an observer can observe.

— Me@2018-06-21 01:09:05 PM

.

.

2019.02.11 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.4

Posted on by

The source of the macroscopic time asymmetry, aka the second law of thermodynamics, is the difference of prediction and retrodiction.

In a prediction, the deduction direction is the same as the physical/observer time direction.

In a retrodiction, the deduction direction is opposite to the physical/observer time direction.

.

— guess —

If a retrodiction is done by a time-opposite observer, he will see the entropy increasing. For him, he is really doing a prediction.

— guess —

.

— Me@2013-10-25 3:33 AM

.

The existence of the so-called “the paradox of the arrow of time” is fundamentally due to the fact that some people insist that physics is about an observer-independent objective truth of reality.

However, it is not the case. Physics is not about “objective” reality.  Instead, physics is always about what an observer would observe.

— Lubos Motl

— paraphrased

— Me@2019-01-19 10:25:15 PM

.

.

2019.01.19 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

宇宙大戰 1.2

Posted on by

PhD, 2.4 | 故事連線 1.1.6 | 碩士 3.4

.

…

（問：我也遇過類似的情境。

我和一位好朋友合作做小組習作時，雖然未至於反目，但總會有很多爭拗。和他合作前，明明和他感情要好。各自有什麼困難時，對方總會杖義相助。

為什麼人類會，那麼奇怪呢？）

.

簡單地說，即使是同一個人，其實也有不同方面，各樣性格。

做朋友時，你只需要接受小部分—你可以選擇，只接受他，最好的優點。但是，做工作伙伴時，你卻要接收大部分—你未必可以選擇，不接受他，最壞的缺點。

.

（問：那樣，如果要「複雜地說」呢？）

.

複雜地說，每個個體也透過自己，在這宇宙間的經歷，形成一個「主觀宇宙」，簡稱「世界觀」。

大部分人，也不自覺地，以為他的主觀宇宙，就是客觀宇宙的全部。這個不幸，源於每個人的主觀宇宙，是他唯一能夠觀察到的「客觀宇宙部分」；每個人當時的主觀宇宙，是他當時唯一能夠，觀察到的「客觀宇宙部分」。

只有一些「被選擇的心靈」，簡稱「半神人」，才會想像到，他的主觀世界，只是客觀世界的極小部分。所以，如果兩個人也不是「半神人」，而又要在工作上合作的話，其實就相當於，把兩個（主觀）宇宙的大部分，重疊在一起。

每個宇宙原本，都有各自的運行法則；貿然要求兩個宇宙，互相干涉對方內政，自然會十分危險。

六千五百萬年前，單單是一個小行星與地球相撞，就足以令大部分恐龍滅絕。試想想，兩個宇宙相撞，殺傷力會大多少倍。

— Me@2019-01-01 11:20:57 PM

.

.

2019.01.01 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

宇宙大戰 1.1

Posted on by

PhD, 2.3 | 故事連線 1.1.5 | 碩士 3.3

.

…

（問：你好似講到，人類那麼危險？）

.

因為事實上，人類的確是，那麼危險。

.

剛才所講，有關選擇碩士或博士論文導師，所需的技巧，背後的精神，其實是通用的—同時適用於你將來選擇公司、上司、生意合作伙伴、配偶，等等。

選擇錯誤，同樣是有改變一生的後果。

.

（問：人類真的那麼危險嗎？）

.

你一日未試過，同一個人有工作關係，或者錢銀來往，你也不會知道，他的真面目。

時常會聽到一類故事：

「

甲和乙是幾十年的要好朋友。他們決定合作創業。不料，一同工作不出幾個月，就反目收場。

」

.

（問：我也遇過類似的情境。

我和一位好朋友合作做小組習作時，雖然未至於反目，但總會有很多爭拗。和他合作前，明明和他感情要好。各自有什麼困難時，對方總會杖義相助。

為什麼人類會，那麼奇怪呢？）

.

簡單地說，即使是同一個人，其實也有不同方面，各樣性格。

做朋友時，你只需要接受小部分—你可以選擇，只接受他，最好的優點。但是，做工作伙伴時，你卻要接收大部分—你未必可以選擇，不接受他，最壞的缺點。

.

（問：那樣，如果要「複雜地說」呢？）

.

— Me@2018-12-20 11:06:49 PM

.

.

2018.12.20 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Relational quantum mechanics

Posted on by

EPR paradox, 10

.

Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint, and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists. It is inspired by the key idea behind special relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.

,,,

Relational solution

In RQM, an interaction between a system and an observer is necessary for the system to have clearly defined properties relative to that observer. Since the two measurement events take place at spacelike separation, they do not lie in the intersection of Alice’s and Bob’s light cones. Indeed, there is no observer who can instantaneously measure both electrons’ spin.

The key to the RQM analysis is to remember that the results obtained on each “wing” of the experiment only become determinate for a given observer once that observer has interacted with the other observer involved. As far as Alice is concerned, the specific results obtained on Bob’s wing of the experiment are indeterminate for her, although she will know that Bob has a definite result. In order to find out what result Bob has, she has to interact with him at some time {\displaystyle t_{3}} in their future light cones, through ordinary classical information channels.

The question then becomes one of whether the expected correlations in results will appear: will the two particles behave in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics? Let us denote by {\displaystyle M_{A}(\alpha )} the idea that the observer {\displaystyle A} (Alice) measures the state of the system {\displaystyle \alpha} (Alice’s particle).

So, at time {\displaystyle t_{2}}, Alice knows the value of {\displaystyle M_{A}(\alpha )}: the spin of her particle, relative to herself. But, since the particles are in a singlet state, she knows that

{\displaystyle M_{A}(\alpha )+M_{A}(\beta )=0,}

and so if she measures her particle’s spin to be {\displaystyle \sigma }, she can predict that Bob’s particle ( {\displaystyle \beta } ) will have spin {\displaystyle -\sigma }. All this follows from standard quantum mechanics, and there is no “spooky action at a distance” yet. From the “coherence-operator” discussed above, Alice also knows that if at {\displaystyle t_{3}} she measures Bob’s particle and then measures Bob (that is asks him what result he got) — or vice versa — the results will be consistent:

{\displaystyle M_{A}(B)=M_{A}(\beta )}

Finally, if a third observer (Charles, say) comes along and measures Alice, Bob, and their respective particles, he will find that everyone still agrees, because his own “coherence-operator” demands that

{\displaystyle M_{C}(A)=M_{C}(\alpha )} and {\displaystyle M_{C}(B)=M_{C}(\beta )}

while knowledge that the particles were in a singlet state tells him that

{\displaystyle M_{C}(\alpha )+M_{C}(\beta )=0.}

Thus the relational interpretation, by shedding the notion of an “absolute state” of the system, allows for an analysis of the EPR paradox which neither violates traditional locality constraints, nor implies superluminal information transfer, since we can assume that all observers are moving at comfortable sub-light velocities. And, most importantly, the results of every observer are in full accordance with those expected by conventional quantum mechanics.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

.

.

2018.10.22 Monday ACHK

The Sixth Sense, 3

Posted on by

Mirror selves, 2 | Anatta 3.2 | 無我 3.2

.

You cannot feel your own existence or non-existence. You can feel the existence or non-existence of (such as) your hair, your hands, etc.

But you cannot feel the existence or non-existence of _you_.

— Me@2018-03-17 5:12 PM

.

Only OTHER people or beings can feel your existence or non-existence.

— Me@2018-04-30 11:29:08 AM

.

.

2018.04.30 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.2

Posted on by

Source of time asymmetry in macroscopic physical systems

Second law of thermodynamics

.

.

Physics is not about reality, but about what one can say about reality.

— Bohr

— paraphrased

.

.

Physics should deduce what an observer would observe,

not what it really is, for that would be impossible.

— Me@2018-02-02 12:15:38 AM

.

.

1. Physics is about what an observer can observe about reality.

2. Whatever an observer can observe is a consistent history.

observer ~ a consistent story

observing ~ gathering a consistent story from the quantum reality

3. Physics [relativity and quantum mechanics] is also about the consistency of results of any two observers _when_, but not before, they compare those results, observational or experimental.

4. That consistency is guaranteed because the comparison of results itself can be regarded as a physical event, which can be observed by a third observer, aka a meta observer.

Since whenever an observer can observe is consistent, the meta-observer would see that the two observers have consistent observational results.

5. Either original observers is one of the possible meta-observers, since it certainly would be witnessing the comparison process of the observation data.

— Me@2018-02-02 10:25:05 PM

.

.

.

2018.02.03 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK