Any other absolutes you care to share?
I read this review about reviewers
https://www.13thnote.net/2020/07/25/the-fckd-up-nature-of-the-audiophile-audio-industry/
An interesting take on what's happening in the industry today.
It was Simon Price's personal experience, but I wonder if it's happening more often than not?
An interesting take on what's happening in the industry today.
It was Simon Price's personal experience, but I wonder if it's happening more often than not?
72 responses
Primates are conscious like you and I.... But we have a choice they dont have now...We dont live in the same world.... We can define ourself or not.....At the level we wanted to.... Primates is a concept for a morphological classificative description not an explanation.... Let your brain think about the difference between a descriptive concept and an explicative one.... For example my "embedding" concept is a descriptive concept in audio, not an explicative concept...But if you want to understand things clearly descriptive concept like "primates" or "embeddings" are very useful, at the express condition to not confuse them with explicative concepts.... I try hard to not derail the thread actual topic : audio and biology..... and about especially some reviewers who confuse descriptive useful concept with useless explicative one.... :) |
yes 1+1=2 And 1 x 1 = 1 But do you know that beside this additive equation there is also other world, for example non-additive geometry ? In a nutshell the = sign veil or hide a dynamical process... Dont take the = sign for the absolute last word about anything... Even about the numbers mystery.... Especially about the numbers mystery.... Beside descriptive concepts of some biological science there exist other sciences who have something to say about man and consciousness with their own descriptive concepts... If you want to begins to explain something the answer is often between the many borders of many sciences descriptive concepts....Like in audio for example, acoustical biology, acoustical engineering, electrical and electronical engineering, mechanical engineering, music, etc :) « You are an idiot mahgister, embedding your knowledge is not enough, upgrade it first» - Groucho Marx |
Beside Goethe , Dawkins is a giant no doubt.... :) The man able to prove God does no exist, is it him? I dont dare to read his book, i hate reading bad books.... i explained without being understood all my life that after reading many thousand books i hate reading....I love great books tough.... It is not the samething at all.... You seems serious about Dawkins science i dont know what to say anymore.... You kill me.... You " z" ( the verb z) my x and y thread post magical helix.... :) |
My comments are not in favor nor denial of current science. Only the danger in absolute disregard for alternatives and blind faith in current thought. A closed mind is a terrible waste. Our original topic, the reviewer, is a great example. He could only see his science and disregarded larger market acceptance of his approach. When I was 30 I knew everything: now, decades of experiences later, I realize I know very little. It actually is liberating and wonderful to know so little. |
Thinking is a working job with sometimes not much money at the end.... I know i was selling and advised people about books in all fields of life...People dont want to think AT ALL, except mostly the young one... Then i discussed all my life with young researchers...( average people dont need advice in their reading if they read at all because they are not on a search for knowledge at all cost, what is the last best thriller is their only boring question and i dont read thrillers ). I know nothing at near 70, but i know what a book is and the value of some concepts and idea.... :) ( in fact i know some valuable thing, i think i lied to stay modest) I know nothing in audio but i created my own audio experience for peanuts....And most of those that have much audio knowledge and experience dont seems to think that it is possible without money.... Then i try to understand simple facts like how to " embed" an audio system to begins with etc and i succeed.... It appeared to me necessary to use a new word for something important and simple and essential to understand in audio....The word "tweaks" was not able to describe what i was experiencing at all.... But i underestimated the power of stupidity in his capacity to not understand at all cost.... :) |
Free will is an illusion. We live in a deterministic universe. My comments are not in favor nor denial of current science. Only the danger in absolute disregard for alternatives and blind faith in current thought. A closed mind is a terrible waste. I am more than open to reading or hearing alternative theories on evolution or gravitation. I agree a closed mind is a terrible thing and as Carl Sagan once said it's good to keep an open mind just not so open your brains fall out. |
Free will is an illusion. We live in a deterministic universe.Like i said i advised people about books and concepts all my life... I will help you but YOU MUST READ and help yourself for the thinking processing of information.... The deterministic myth is born from Laplace differential equations interpretation model... But nowadays we know better about the different kind of differential equations field, for example functional differential equations.... And also the differential laws models of the universe are perhaps now out of date with new discoveries for example about time and information.... Then an algorithmic concept of laws is perhaps and probably better.... In this algorithmic concept there is many indeterministic seashore and many island for freedom exercise.... If you want to know more i can give to you much material to ponder to..... :) But who need to think when he owns a precious opinions and beliefs and certainty ? You decide between a serious book or a thriller, you are free.....The choice is not determined at all....Your choice will introduce a new creation in the universe think about that.... The proof is in this article.... i cannot gives too much books to read in a first try.... :) A short review idea of what this is all about first about his computed billiard model : « The main interest of the present work is to have identified and quantified, with our different expressions of Nc, a critical step above which calculations are no more deterministic, meaning that the precision of initial conditions does not allow to pursue calculations without introducing, among the multiple possibilities, an arbitrary choice of the final state, independent of initial data. We have also shown that if calculations are still extended enough in time, whatever state of the billiard could become a final state. This raises fundamental questions in the context where information would be really physical and then its amount bounded. Though it involves a simplified discrete model, the concept of physical information that we introduced in (7) models a classical type of uncertainty that would be inherent to any discrete space–time, into which the loss of physical information would no more be a subjective loss of information but a real loss of information of space–time itself. That is why it is important to discriminate the genuine multiplicity of histories that could be due to the physicality of information (of limited density), from a stochastic unpredictability inherent to a practical limit of initial conditions precision. A significant result of our work is that we have found that the amount of deterministic information that can be calculated until the critical step is of the same order as the amount of information that is contained into initial conditions. Then, we have raised a ‘‘paradox of information’’ in as much as it expresses a strange situation: the deterministic information that can be extracted from fundamental laws has a maximum that can be much lower than the entire amount of information contained into the initial conditions. Beyond the fact that the initial data should have a physical limit, any predictive model should indeed be able to provide a calculation which plays the role of data compression algorithm. In particular, it should be able to compress the data relative to trajectories of balls in a billiard into a set of initial conditions occupying much less memory, yet we observe the opposite. We think that this is seriously arguing in favor of the idea that our ‘‘known’’ laws of the Universe are in fact incomplete at the discrete level. As a consequence, we have shown that dealing with physical information raises a strange situation, which is to make the final state of the billiard independent of its initial state after a saturation time. This independence is not so strange for statistical physics which made the choice to base its powerful equations upon random trajectories, justifying probabilistic calculations. But this choice is not solving the fundamental problem of indeterminism, which implies that if one wants to describe a unique evolution among a multiverse of possibilities, one has to introduce additional parameters that play the role of additional space–time dimensions. So, it raises this question: for a discrete space whose dimension is Nd, how many dimensions should be added to restore determinism? http://www.guillemant.net/english/A_discrete_classical_space-time_could_require_6_extra_dimensions.pdf A better review of this article goal: « ABSTRACT: We consider the possibility for our space-time to be discrete and for the laws of the Universe to be implemented in a computational way, in correlation with the principle according to which the density of information is bounded. We use the small-scale model of the 2D billiard to study the consequences of such a boundary on ball phase uncertainties, in calculating their propagation after each shock and estimating the corresponding loss of phase information. Our main result is the measurement of a critical time step above which billiard calculations are no longer deterministic, meaning that a multiverse of distinct billiard histories begins to appear, caused by the lack of information. We then highlight unexpected properties of this time step and the subsequent exponential evolution of the number of histories with time to observe that after a certain duration, all billiard states could become possible final states, independent of initial conditions. We conclude that if our space-time was really a discrete one, we could need to add still unknown atemporal laws of the Universe to our computation, so as to calculate extra-dimensions in order to specify which history should be played. CONCLUSION: In a discrete space-time of finite density of information, it turns out from our computations that the amount of deterministic information that is calculable using physical laws is of the same order as the amount of information that is contained into initial conditions. This suggests a possible incompleteness of governing laws at discrete level. Our results then imply that a 3D discrete space-time would need 3 additional dimensions to specify final conditions, and even 6 extra ones if one supposes the existence of alternative present paths, like in many-worlds theory. In particular, we have argued for the possibility for final conditions of a sufficiently distant future of our universe to be at least partially independent of our present state, which seems interesting if only because it would preserve a chance for free will. Though it is attractive to characterize a unique version of our Universe within the multiverse by postulating the uniqueness of its present state, one can wonder how many extra-dimensions are necessary. Our work suggests a discrete space-time could require up to 6 extra-dimensions. This should be interpreted as highlighting the fact that our known physical laws of the Universe could still be incomplete to describe reality, and that we would need complementary laws. As it should be in the present case timeless ones, we guess that quantum gravity emerging from Wheeler Dewitt equation [22] could bring key elements to compensate the loss of information, so as to calculate extra dimensions and then restore determinism. Are we living in a completely deterministic universe? Probably not.... Is a place exist for freedom ? Probably yes.... |
No need or reason to apologize. I fell robust discussion to be a thing of value. I was just making a snarky remark on something I’m passionate about since it affects every facet of our lives. As for monkeys, if I had one, I’d have a hard time choosing between Scopes or Darrow for his name. 👍😄👍 All the best, Nonoise |
@mahgister There's a huge gulf between The Selfish Gene and the allied academic material that surrounds it, and his much later books like The God Delusion. In a way it's a pity he published those texts in the 2000s, as it diverts people's attention away from the earlier ground-breaking research in genetic biology. |
twoleftears I dont doubt that he published valid genetical biology papers, this fact is very recognized.... But his philosophy is not interesting....His concept of meme is also very poor.... A complete semiotic theory of the symbolic function in culture is way over his head and cannot be reduced to genetic biology....Publishing some valid research in genetic dont make you a great thinker... And Believing or not in God dont make the concept of God trivial by no means....Man is deluded not by the concept of God or even by his relation to God but by the cultural appropriation of God....Trashing the baby with the bath is no great philosophy and not science at all.... I apologize to you for being perhaps rude because i am too serious... My best to you... |
Cool! Clicked on the thread and wound up in a philosophical discussion about science. Here are some of my thoughts but I have have no science background to draw upon. Gravity is not understood and remains a theory as some have stated. If you get into physics you will learn that we know very little about gravity. Once you get into how it impacts bodies in space, it can get weird. We fully understand the results here on Earth but we also have to understand that when it comes to physics, we're in our infancy. No one has brought it up so I will. And I don't mean to get all "ancient alien" here but when it comes to the ascent of man (no gender bias intended) how is it that we cannot understand how the pyramids were built or how some of the stone masonry was accomplished in Peru. If you really want to bend your mind go to Cuzco and just start looking around. Things just don't add up in our (perceived) understanding of the advancement of human technology. I have been there and you just leave shaking your head and rejecting what we have been taught. Additionally, considering the previous point, we like to consider evolution in a linear scale. We learn new things, they get passed down and humans advance. Pretty simple. Let's consider the fact that 150 years ago we were using horses for transportation and we now have rovers on the planet Mars. Ok, linear progression right? Now how is it that ancient people wandering around the desert managed to build the pyramids with such precision that we could not accomplish that today? The knowledge came from somewhere. Where? And where did it go? How was this knowledge lost and what was its source? If we went from riding horses to a rover on Mars in roughly 150 years and we (man) built pyramids with great precision roughly 5000 years ago.....what happened? As I stated, the ascent of man is not linear and man is not evolved from apes. I don't have any answers, I only have questions. |