3 ms·

> He is excited by the possibility that developing this idea will solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics as well as uniting quantum theory with rela

by JDEW 5y ago

> He is excited by the possibility that developing this idea will solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics as well as uniting quantum theory with relativity. He also thinks, even more controversially, that it could identify meaning in the universe. Sigh > But Barbour seems happy to swap the roles of science and the arts. He even suggests that art might provide a better guide to the true nature of the universe than science. What did I just read? > ...he writes that human moments of deep creativity “might be subliminal inspirations from the whole universe,” and that a performance of a great operatic aria can capture something of the cosmos as neatly as any mathematical equation. Riiiight. If I would get a dollar for every story along the lines of "Lone genius... famous university... mumble mumble... quantum gravity... mumble mumble... meaning of life..."... (Not necessarily criticizing Barbour, whose work I haven't read)

tgv 5y ago
I agree. That's pretty nonsensical. "[A] performance of a great operatic aria can capture something of the cosmos as neatly as any mathematical equation." The amount of assumptions and reinterpretation of common language that have to be made for that statement is staggering.
- zenron 5y ago
  Is it nonsensical? Does it need a lot of assumptions? TLDR - The Earth is a breadboard and humans decided to arrange themselves in such a way that they created an immense circuit that could be made into a schematic to be replicated. It data packs every choice each performer makes(singer, composer, carpenter, painter, marketer, observer) in their lives over a duration until observation. Is it safe to consider this is an analog what they meant? - A great operatic area is the product of many threads of choices from composers (tone arranger), singers (tone generators), carpenters (set creators), painters (set decorators), etc. that over their lives chose to develop talents (some internal arousal). Then you have the observers who view the operation. For replication, depending on the era that the opera was created and first rendered the replication and want to re-view it or expand viewership the adding more observers would be word to mouth. In a modern era that moment of orchestration could be captured on video and marketed online. This opens even MORE human interaction and duration because the humans over time moved technology to the point where the quality of sampling rate has moved from poor audio to obscenely realistic video. Then there are people who may have heard it at a lower sample rate and prefer it vs new sampling rates which are incidental data inputs in and of themselves. And as people die new generations pick up positions in the orchestration the decisions they chose, the biological improvements for tone generations one person may have, or a more expressive actor may impact the observers more than a previous one. That last aspect, is very much like iteration over PCB designs where you may swap out an old technology for a new one that does the job more efficiently. Or maybe I am way off and my exercise at Duck Typing the humanities to circuit design is whimsical and lacking… edit: for some clarity around word to mouth and modern marketing

by JDEW 5y ago

tgv 5y ago

I agree. That's pretty nonsensical. "[A] performance of a great operatic aria can capture something of the cosmos as neatly as any mathematical equation." The amount of assumptions and reinterpretation of common language that have to be made for that statement is staggering.

zenron 5y ago
Is it nonsensical? Does it need a lot of assumptions? TLDR - The Earth is a breadboard and humans decided to arrange themselves in such a way that they created an immense circuit that could be made into a schematic to be replicated. It data packs every choice each performer makes(singer, composer, carpenter, painter, marketer, observer) in their lives over a duration until observation. Is it safe to consider this is an analog what they meant? - A great operatic area is the product of many threads of choices from composers (tone arranger), singers (tone generators), carpenters (set creators), painters (set decorators), etc. that over their lives chose to develop talents (some internal arousal). Then you have the observers who view the operation. For replication, depending on the era that the opera was created and first rendered the replication and want to re-view it or expand viewership the adding more observers would be word to mouth. In a modern era that moment of orchestration could be captured on video and marketed online. This opens even MORE human interaction and duration because the humans over time moved technology to the point where the quality of sampling rate has moved from poor audio to obscenely realistic video. Then there are people who may have heard it at a lower sample rate and prefer it vs new sampling rates which are incidental data inputs in and of themselves. And as people die new generations pick up positions in the orchestration the decisions they chose, the biological improvements for tone generations one person may have, or a more expressive actor may impact the observers more than a previous one. That last aspect, is very much like iteration over PCB designs where you may swap out an old technology for a new one that does the job more efficiently. Or maybe I am way off and my exercise at Duck Typing the humanities to circuit design is whimsical and lacking… edit: for some clarity around word to mouth and modern marketing