"Human all too Human"

[JLIAT]

Humans are impossibly stupid and self-centered, they are merely just one speck in evolution and cosmology.
There is nothing unique to humans, that isn't also seen in other animals.

Hmmmm.. evolution... well i guess animals use tools and language...and you could argue Mars landers and the LHC are 'merely' tools but its been said that evolution by natural selection is no longer appropriate to humans... your own criticism in part shows the survival of no longer the fittest in your opinion.  I guess war is also a fairly human trait. I'm also not sure if other animals genetically modify plants and animals for their use? I'm think of wheat... et al.

As for wikipedia, its not always a reliable source, but what i've found a benefit of recent technology is print on demand such that you can get texts which are out of print or of a niche nature by the likes of Amazon.

And to be picky, there is a line of thought that goes without humans there wouldn't be (a theory) of evolution or cosmology.

Don't be picky, because you are an inquisitive person, and you actively take an interest in 'far-out' things, which makes me respect you.

Damming myself with faint praise, typically English. By picky I mean the assumption some people make about 'Science'. Science tends to generalize, and categorize, and use mathematics. These are all human traits and very successful ones. However 'nature' – (and here 'nature' is a human idea) does not generalize. Its why things such as Covid don't have the same effect in everyone.  But the generalizations of Science are incredibly useful.  Or should I say the theories or 'models', like a map. Now maybe once (Newton et al) thought nature obeyed the laws, simply because these laws were how God made nature. He, Newton, simply discovered them, however this is no longer the case. Atoms don't 'obey' laws, laws give the best possible model. Whereas philosophy aimed at concepts which were actual. Here the aim was Ideas that were identical to Reality. I guess you know this. But that is why I was picky.

And Nature itself, when She gets pissed by the lack of proper breeding habits among humans, may take it upon herself to release hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, pathogens, and whatever else to rectify the situation.

It would be arrogant to presume human knowledge as the pinnacle of knowledge.

I see you again anthropomorphize nature. There is in reality no such thing as nature, and certainly not a she who gets pissed. It strikes me as not much different to the idea that God caused the Lisbon earthquake. Obviously things like Covid, spread due to globalization, but its NOT the case that it takes advantage. And there were hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, long before humans, and will be long after no doubt. But you're right about human arrogance IMO, we call this planet 'Earth' yet its mostly water... :-)

Though it certainly would be arrogant to assume human knowledge is any pinnacle. In coming to terms with reality, life as lived experience IMO Art does a better job than science. (or I should say 'did')  - And by the by  IMO this last thing fits in with the guidelines. And raises the idea of Art being more than fun....

[JLIAT]

And to be picky, there is a line of thought that goes without humans there wouldn't be (a theory) of evolution or cosmology.

But surely the reality these theories attempt to describe would be the same, whether there were people to attempt to understand it or not? Or do you disagree?

I find such a question deeply puzzling.  I cant do the maths for physics and maybe the more crazy aspects are just that, i.e. observations actually changing the physical reality,  (the twin slit experiment) similar to Berkeley's   esse is percipi (to be is to be perceived) ... which I cant understand! and the idea of Reference Frames... & Simultaneity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM  or more recently for me the idea that time and space simply don't exist for a photon. And yet these are streaming into my eyes as I type... so time and space are real for me, but not for photons. Crazy! And Kant way back claimed time and space were not 'real'.


Seems most of us live in a more Newtonian world where space and time are fixed. And odd that Kant back in the 1700s  said different, that we can never know 'things in themselves'...  all very interesting for some, me, but not others. So maybe there is some objective reality, but if so it seems to be beyond my understanding, and maybe the idea of such is more like religious belief?

Which is why as I said I think Art can (or did) allow some engagement with 'reality', but this will always be subjective and beyond explanation.

And as part of this my ideas re art have changed,  the kind of subjective representations of say Picasso are more appropriate than the objective non representational abstractions of latter art.

[Atrophist]

I'm like you, as much as I'd like to, I cannot simply wrap my mind around higher physics or mathematics. I have Roger Penrose's Road to Reality and a few other similar books, and once in a blue moon I'll have a stab at them. I'm usually lucky if I make it more than 5 pages before getting utterly lost.

So, I cannot explain how in scientific terms, but as far as I understand it, the (possibly) troubling implications of the double-slit experiment are simply a quantum version of the plain old observer effect.

To me the idea that we somehow create external reality by observing it is anthropocentric hubris. But what do I know. Did you know our senses deceive us much of the time? We don't really see what we think we see, instead we see a composite view our brain has scrambled toget her from raw visual data, hoping it will make sense to us. Etc.

[JLIAT]

I'm like you, as much as I'd like to, I cannot simply wrap my mind around higher physics or mathematics. I have Roger Penrose's Road to Reality and a few other similar books, and once in a blue moon I'll have a stab at them. I'm usually lucky if I make it more than 5 pages before getting utterly lost.

Penrose is difficult, I find John Barrow 'better'. I think his 'The Book of Nothing' is a fairly easy read, and his demonstration of there being more than one zero, but his final point about the idea of eternal recurrence very interesting as its basically the same idea of Nietzsche's, (and his acceptance of it overcoming nihilism...)  though for me it doesn't 'work'  -  due to 'The identity of indiscernables'... Also his book on 'Impossibility'.  Again forgive me if you are familiar with these, and this, the proof by Gödel that mathematics is incomplete. I think this is a fundamental problem for a science which uses maths. I taught computer science, and can 'get it' via 'The halting problem'.
And in mentioning Gödel and his work which is deeply significant, also the work of Cantor, set theory, which is used in computing – databases... but within this the idea of different infinities. Again I can get the first two, the countable infinities, - rational numbers, and the uncountable ones, The Reals. Cantors proof of uncountability is fantastic.

So, I cannot explain how in scientific terms, but as far as I understand it, the (possibly) troubling implications of the double-slit experiment are simply a quantum version of the plain old observer effect.

I think its more than this, to observe is to change, like being watched doing something... but here its not quite the same, the state of reality before the observation is it holds all possibilities, the observation collapsing these into one. Such that phenomena such as tunnelling diodes 'work' because they 'obey' (they don't) QM probability and not classical physics, which would rule out the ability to pass through an 'unpassable barrier'.



As i said its because of this reality that Tunnelling Diodes work, Barrow shows in his book on Nothing, given infinite time history will repeat...

To me the idea that we somehow create external reality by observing it is anthropocentric hubris. But what do I know. Did you know our senses deceive us much of the time? We don't really see what we think we see, instead we see a composite view our brain has scrambled toget her from raw visual data, hoping it will make sense to us. Etc.

True, but if what we see is not the visual image, I mean its upside down for a start, then in a way the brain does create a reality, 'for us'. I could bore for England over this, but bird's brains have huge chunks for spacial awareness as their world is 3D.  But the reverse of  anthropocentric vision is what, to see things as they actually are? Which is as God would.... Again I could go on and on, but Heidegger – the MAN – would probably question the question 'What is Reality' by asking and demonstrating the problem in this by asking "What is 'is'?" That's the problem...!

[bdr]

Check out the "Transactional Model of Quantum Mechanics"

[JLIAT]

Check out the "Transactional Model of Quantum Mechanics"

Thanks I will...

"1. "TI does not generate new predictions / is not testable / has not been tested."

TI is an exact interpretation of QM and so its predictions must be the same as QM. "

As would the idea that God or the Devil is causing these effects. TI may or may not be a better model for 'reality' but it is not how reality works. Photons are worse at maths than I am. The problem is the mistake made for thinking the (mathematical) model IS identical to reality - and Hegel got there back in 1812, "The Ideal (idea) is the Real". Nope!

Physics like insurance companies is highly successful, and 18 year old males will find it hard to get insurance for a Porsche, no matter how safe a driver they are....

Which led me to this... which is very interesting...

"Relational quantum mechanics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics


"There is no privileged, "real" account.

The idea has been expanded upon by Lee Smolin[5] and Louis Crane,[6] who have both applied the concept to quantum cosmology, and the interpretation has been applied to the EPR paradox, revealing not only a peaceful co-existence between quantum mechanics and special relativity, but a formal indication of a completely local character to reality.


As was discussed above, it is not possible for an object to contain a complete specification of itself."

[AnonMessAgeSage]

Check out the "Transactional Model of Quantum Mechanics"

Thanks I will...

"1. "TI does not generate new predictions / is not testable / has not been tested."

TI is an exact interpretation of QM and so its predictions must be the same as QM. "

As would the idea that God or the Devil is causing these effects. TI may or may not be a better model for 'reality' but it is not how reality works. Photons are worse at maths than I am. The problem is the mistake made for thinking the (mathematical) model IS identical to reality - and Hegel got there back in 1812, "The Ideal (idea) is the Real". Nope!

Physics like insurance companies is highly successful, and 18 year old males will find it hard to get insurance for a Porsche, no matter how safe a driver they are....

Which led me to this... which is very interesting...

"Relational quantum mechanics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics


"There is no privileged, "real" account.

The idea has been expanded upon by Lee Smolin[5] and Louis Crane,[6] who have both applied the concept to quantum cosmology, and the interpretation has been applied to the EPR paradox, revealing not only a peaceful co-existence between quantum mechanics and special relativity, but a formal indication of a completely local character to reality.


As was discussed above, it is not possible for an object to contain a complete specification of itself."

Honestly, people whine about off-topic posts. But it's a forum. The nature of discussion leads to tangential conversations online. Also, music scenes change, and that's a good thing.

For instance, I always associated with artists on the "dark net," so to speak. Except for maybe some of the TRULY obscure experimental / Noise music of the 70's and 80's, that was made for maybe two people, the larger scene developed TOTALLY independently, despite calling itself by the same name, it was world's apart.

That OLD scene, more or less faded into the darker recesses of the internet as it was just coming-out, as all the new scene developed with the acts of the 90's, which everybody knows on here.

So I always laugh when people whine about the "new scene."

That old-style never died-out, though, it morphed into smaller and fractured groups. So I never cared to belong to a modern "underground Noise" scene. There are some literal fucking masterpieces if you know where to look. Extremely intelligent people, and they all scoff at the likes of the people here.

If you know where to look, you will see. There are no names, like a band or "project" name. And if there is a name, it is usually some code, riddle, or sequence of numbers, or outright MOCKERY of the subject of names itself.

It demands a certain amount of functional intelligence of the viewer of the art, because the viewer itself, becomes an active participant.

Keep inquiring. You will see.

[AnonMessAgeSage]

It is also true that those people who cannot understand how larger ideas relate to one another confuse subjects as being unrelated by their small-brained inability to focus on things outside of easily-packaged and consumable ideas.

[JLIAT]

I'm not averse to tangents but started this thread because some were, OK the discussion of genetics in the reading thread upset some, which is why I started this " there just be one dedicated thread for this stupid bullshit and kept out of the regular ADULT threads? " why though this is thought stupid bullshit and not ADULT I don't know.

And my interest was in the ideas re 'reality'.

"For instance, I always associated with artists on the "dark net," so to speak. Except for maybe some of the TRULY obscure experimental / Noise music of the 70's and 80's, that was made for maybe two people, the larger scene developed TOTALLY independently, despite calling itself by the same name, it was world's apart."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, in the 70s I was introduced to the likes of Cage, Stockhausen, and groups like intermodulation, Spontaneous Music Ensemble- Derek Bailey, Riley, Reich et al. who i'd never heard of. The latter only available in the UK with difficulty as imports.

I'm unaware of hidden masterpieces, and within the context of 'music' as 'Art' i'd say, and argue that they are now not possible.


As for  "Extremely intelligent people, and they all scoff at the likes of the people here." I've maybe met some, and that is the last thing they do, its more the second rate who think themselves above the herd IMO, and experience.

"It is also true that those people who cannot understand how larger ideas relate to one another confuse subjects as being unrelated by their small-brained inability  "

Another interesting comment. It relates to my notions above, given the idea of an infinite reality, any finite intelligence would have no more a handle on it than a rock would.

"Keep inquiring. You will see."

I've come to see that inquiring is only of interest in and of itself. But then I'm old...

[AnonMessAgeSage]

No, they do.
I shouldn't even be posting here. I only do it to guide those with an inkling suspicion.
I personally couldn't care if I'd be mocked a million times over.

In fact, I've received extreme amounts of criticism. I'm also not trying to fit in. I only care about planting seeds.

The rest is up to you mortals.
It's beneath me to even type on a godforsaken forum.

But how does one escape the tragedies of the 21-century?
It's impossible.

Gore porn and Kim Kardashian's ass now exist on the same level.

Not my fucking problem.

[AnonMessAgeSage]

People wouldn't know HELL if it were staring them in the face.

[Atrophist]

I'm not averse to tangents but started this thread because some were, OK the discussion of genetics in the reading thread upset some, which is why I started this " there just be one dedicated thread for this stupid bullshit and kept out of the regular ADULT threads? " why though this is thought stupid bullshit and not ADULT I don't know.

Actually I didn't interpret it that way, or perhaps didn't want to ... So it's okay to just report what book you are reading at the moment, but actually discussing the books, as well as the topics they cover, is stupid non-adult bullshit? That makes absolutely no sense whatever.

[Atrophist]

Penrose is difficult, I find John Barrow 'better'. I think his 'The Book of Nothing' is a fairly easy read, and his demonstration of there being more than one zero ...

I looked this author up on the Helsinki library system online catalogue, and they have several of his books. Not this one however. They do have something called The Book of Universes which based on the title I guess might be related to that one?

[JLIAT]

But how does one escape the tragedies of the 21-century?
It's impossible.

At times you are very Nietzschean, at others not. There is no escape, but to quote ...

"Amor fati"

or

" One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

― Albert Camus

[JLIAT]

Actually I didn't interpret it that way, or perhaps didn't want to ... So it's okay to just report what book you are reading at the moment, but actually discussing the books, as well as the topics they cover, is stupid non-adult bullshit? That makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Agreed, there are are some however who dislike wider discussions of books and of noise... normally they make the point by referring this as 'pseudo intellectual bullshit.." The 'non-adult' thing threw me, as prior in the thread someone was discussing comic books. Which is fine by me, one reads what one likes or what is puzzling. I read mainly non fiction, philosophy, and in the past popular science – hence the Barrow books I mention. The Book of Universes relates more to cosmology, whereas the Nothing book is an insight into Mathematics and its relation to Physics, the 'Impossibility' book sketches out the limits of science. His 'Artful Universe' is also interesting, there is a chapter on "NOISE"!!  I do take issue though with his ideas re Art, IMO there is no comparison with the momentous idea of Gödel with the illustrations of Escher. A better one would be Duchamp or Cage, who I would (as others) argue fundamentally changed the ideas re music/art.

If like me mathematics is difficult but intriguing I wonder if you have come across  "Introducing Mathematics", by Ziauddin Sardarin in the comic paper back series.  It covers Gödel and Cantor in terms that even I can follow....  :-)