I read this review about reviewers

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.

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...

@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.

Maybe Jerry Falwell Jr? No ,it would  just insult the monkey. 

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

Would not surprise me to see this thread disappear. I get carried away, can't understand not accepting evolution. It's one of the most supported theories in all of science. 

Mahjister
You are passionate about learning. I reject your apology as none is needed. Peace.  :-)

And to think that political topics get shut down.
The irony abounds.

I apologize djones....

I am effectively too much serious....

I apologize to all for that....

My best to you.....

Don't take it so serious mahgister. 

djones

Good to hear on the open minds. Speaking of Carl Sagan, he also said, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality”. There is room for everyone. It’s been a pleasure discussing with all of you 

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....

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.

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.... :)

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. 

I am constantly amused that some believe whatever they are told, without self investigation. It is a free world, (we're told) and given free will. (absolute)

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....

:)

Some of the posts here beggar belief.

Evidently, Darwin didn't have all the science available to him that we have today, but his broad insights were extraordinary. Much later Richard Dawkins swooped in with the concept of the Selfish Gene, to dot the i's and cross the t's.

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

Any other absolutes you care to share

1+1=2

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....

:)

Any other absolutes you care to share?

Man is a modern ape. We are primates like chimpanzees,  bonobos,  gorillas etc.., there was a common ancestor that was neither a chimpanzee or a human or a gorilla.  Humans diverged from other primates somewhere between 5 to 7 million years ago. There is no either or , no us them,  we are primates no more no less. 

winnardt

Thanks for your remarks, you are perfectly right and i cannot object or correct that because this is paleontological morphology science...

But when i was refering to man i was thinking also about the spiritual aspect of consciousness not only the morphological classification....

I am not a creationism and not a die hard Darwinian at all cost either....Reality exceed these 2 simplistic views....

:)

And you seem to have read me, human are apes or not, this is a free choice at the level where we live to identify our consciousness with the lowest or the highest level in the consciousness scale, and also relatively not only and solely to the modern morphology of man and apes......( by modern i mean 1 million years ) For me man is not totally reducible to actual biology....There is other sciences also useful to develop a concept of man linked to a concept of consciousness...

.Man is a complex phenomenon and it takes more than a few sciences to even only recognize the phenomenon, then using one science only to explain it is evident  dogmas and veiled superstition.... :)

I also supposed that the actual classification is on the basis of a retrospectively observed ACTUAL morphological differences between apes and man.... But there is a validity limit about this retrospective projection and analysis in the past.... Somewhere in the past there is "something" that is neither a modern apes nor a modern human, and maintaining the differences is no more scientific and valid....This hominid entity is the ancestor of modern man and modern apes....This entity is not a man nor an ape....

Man dont come directly from modern apes, but from a common source with the apes more than one million years ago and probably more...

Man coming from apes is the title of the news in nineteen century sensationalist newspapers in the ape trials in US....This is not science....This is biblical writing in reverse mode....I am not biblical nor darwinian in this limited fashion at all....

mahgister

You did pretty well except for saying humans are not apes. It's a classification thing, so don't take it personally. Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes. Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).

:)

There is proof that "cave man"invented the wheel. evident in that Fred Flintstone had a phonograph. Of course, it was early technology as it used a bird for a tonearm and stylus. Imagine the added difficulties we'd currently have with square records?

Anyway between abiogenesis reductive take on life and creation in 7 days by a bearded creator, there is a world and a reality to understand and very great space to explore...

And upgrading without embedding it properly is stupid, and nobody confuse a 100, 000 dollars amplifier with a 100 dollars one, nevermind the embeddings...

But is an audio experience of a great quality reserved to expansive system?
The answer is no....We must teach ourself how to rightfully embed what we own before throwing money  most of the times in  illusory upgrades....

Defending ’creationism’ does not belong on a discussion about audio reviewers - even if a particular reviewer professes it. 

Imo Abiogenesis and "embeddings" are two intellectually appealing schemes that go nowhere, in the first case literally, and the second, practically. :)

Do not take your own confusion for reality....

And why do you compare "abiogenesis" and a simple notion like an"embedding" in audio matters, the embedding concept only clarify and presuppose some evident aspect and ways for an audio system to be working in a "specific" environment, then why relating this simple,evident notion, with a complex problem like life origin?

Are you confused or raging about my simple notion or the 2; or simply not rational for some reason?

Perhaps you are a reviewer and dont like my remarks about the inevitable bias of pro- reviewers?

Please clarify for us....

Thanks :)

But if i remember your posts to me in the past you expressively said that only money and upgrade can gives an audio top experience, no mechanical controls, no electrical grid controls, and not even acoustical controls all that i called "embeddings".... You even say to me to buy better speakers,without even knowing the speakers i own, instead of embedding rightfully the one i already have....You even said i was deluded or deluding myself because i was not thinking in the least to upgrade.... :)

Then it is not necessary to answer my actual post... You are a probably a pro- reviewer and you are confused or entertain the confusion in audio....All reviewers are not the same for sure....

My motto is : Dont upgrade something before embedding eveything rightfully....

Is it very difficult to understand a so simple advice? A children can understand that why not you?

No, except if you are brain dead or some kind of professional-reviewer or the 2, because there is a difference, all reviewers are not the same....

Imo Abiogenesis and "embeddings" are two intellectually appealing schemes that go nowhere, in the first case literally, and the second, practically.  :)

“Humans are apes, the ignorance here is astounding.”
Flat earthers felt the same way....as did those who believed the earth the center of the universe. Science evolves. Fact evolves. Some people don’t ;-)

The problem with reviewers is that they make our choices inevitably oriented in some direction...

This direction is almost the same for almost all reviewers....What is the best new component on the market?

But what is important in Audio is not the choice of an electronic component at the end, there is plenty of good electronic components to choose first in this sea of products, but the most important at the end is the way we will embed the relatively good component we already have bought.... How to gives a way, how to make possible, and how to free his optimal S.Q. ?

But all reviewers guides our thinking process "nolens volens" in the urgent need to an upgrade not toward a rightful embedding of what we already own...

Then being paid or not, they are not neutral by the very requirements of their activity or profession....And for most Audio is synonymous with "generic" electronic design, not with the "specific" and necessary complex embeddings... But audio hobby is the art of  the improved listenings, not the art of buying a new " something" that will solve all audio problems out of the box....



«Man does not come from apes, and listening does not evolve from engineering, it is the reverse»-Groucho Marx

Quite a few decades ago, when I worked at a high-end dealer in DC, I met a guy who wrote reviews for a few of the popular rags of the day.  He told me that, if you tended to write positive reviews, a manufacturer would ship a product to you for evaluation and instead of returning the reviewed item to the manufacturer, they would offer to sell it to the reviewer at a huge discount.  The reviewer would then be free to sell the unit and reap whatever profits they could, further adding to their compensation.  He told me that he once reviewed a speaker from a major manufacturer and they offered to charge him 20% of retail, instead of returning them...a quick couple of hundred bucks more for him!

Reality is not something that can be explained only by human science in his actual state....If you think so, you dont know what reality is.... Think again.... :)

And by the way evolution and Darwinian evolution theory are not exactly the same thing...Goethe for example was an evolutionist before Darwin ....His discovery of the intermaxillary bone convinced him that apes and human has a common unknown ancestor.... His research in plant biology and morphology gives him a theory of evolution in plants changes also....His view of evolution are not Darwinian but they were very deep....

Reality complexities are not exorcised by argument like: a stone falling is a fact and gravitation theory explain it...Fact and theory are 2 sides of the same coin....Reality is a coin with only one side....

Accusing Darwin to be racist has not much sense in the era in which he lived where most people were...Asking why racism exist at these times makes more sense....But answering that implicate the history of human consciousness....

Humans are apes, the ignorance here is astounding.

We are not apes, it is a choice to be one or not at our level of existence.... And anyway all living creatures are conscious....Then somewhere are ultimately equals....

Ignorance is not bigger here than anywhere for someone who read books and is unable to read most newspapers ...

:)

djones, you make a good argument (example) that man indeed evolved from apes.

This affirmation is already a simplistic deformation of the evolution concept, in a bad interpretation and a reductionist one of the Darwinian theory....

Man does not evolved from apes....Apes like we know them now did not exist at all a million year ago or more....A million year ago "something" which was neither modern human nor apes like we know them now separate itself in 2 different evolutionary current : human and apes....

The "fact" that human comes from apes was the newspaper "truth" version of Darwinian theory against Bible fundamentalist....And this is absolutely not a fact in reality and not even in Darwinian theory....

Reality dont care about newspapers....People do....

djones, you make a good argument (example) that man indeed evolved from apes. 

I am a sexist. I love women.

Come on djones51, you know it all happened in 7 days:)

Gravity is a theory. If you jump off a building you fall to the earth is a fact. Evolution is a theory, descent with modification is a fact. Scientific theory is not some random notion about audiophile cables. Scientific theories are the explanation of facts we observe. For all intents and purposes gravity is a fact as is evolution. Grow up. Get out of the 15th century.

They topple statues of the Founding Fathers of a great free nation, and even some abolitionists, but look past one of the most negatively influential people to have lived, who was racist and sexist, who inspired Hitler and Margaret Sanger. 

And you want to celebrate such a person? I won't. 

Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

source - https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Darwin had a theory, it’s still a theory, even if there are those who consider it fact.

Like the fact that most who have posted on here regarding the article by Simon Price, is that he is incorrect in his assumptions, and needs to reconsider how he conducts business if wants to continue reviewing hifi and make a living solely from it.

After all, aren’t we all here in Agon, when sharing our findings, somewhat all reviewers?

«History of science is science» -Goethe

Science is not truth, it is the pursuit of truth in his own way....

Darwin’s theory is not a matter to believe in, it is a matter to think about....

Darwin never denounced his theory on his deathbed. Why would he? He was right. Get off the crazy conspiracy theory websites.

What sense it makes to accuse specific people of the past of something that was common place for almost all?

well well another complete devolution of a thread on a-gon

Darwin denounced his theory on his deathbed. I fully agree with Doug at least in regard to CD being very racist.

Darwin was a loser in every respect, and not only racist, but sexist.

Loser? Racist? Sexist?

Why not accusing Charles the Great in 814 or even Pericles in 429 before Christ of the same thing?

By the way with your set of criterias you forgot Newton, and why not Goethe?

Ok i will go to my retreat in the Rockies or in the Himalaya.....

On the origin of Species changed the world. Not bad for a loser.