Xard

Pink Floyd - Young Lust

I DO There's good stuff and researches in it, but mostly it is ****ing stupidest thing darwinists have come up with since "meme theory" plus it is controversial

The Beach Boys - California Grils

Sartre pwned soliptists with the whole nature of consciousness and how it's always kind of directed at something etc. bla bla bla

bah, nothing but charade you are!

That was ****ing hilarious

Walsh is just so awesome

awesome song ... but for some reason everytime i try to listen to a full yes album it puts me to sleep. i think yes is great, but it puts me to sleep. sammy hagar - standing hampton (entire cd) haha same here I don't like most of Yes and its ilk, but when I hear awesome song it is awesome song. Lynyrd Skynyrd - Free Bird DAGADAGADAGADAGADADGADAAAAAAA mad guitar solo

Yes - Roundabout My favourite Yes song

"Chopin same as Mozart" B.B King - The Thrill is Gone

Ah, I didn't know about the reality-spanning implications of that. While interesting as a thought experiment, it's just another cosmogony... everyone has their own I guess. What is exactly predicted to happen? I don't follow. Good point. We can always use more quality sci-fi. Carry on with the pop science! As a side note, I didn't mean for it to come across as criticism... but it never fails to amaze me how journalists always manage to focus on tangential issues and blow them out of proportion, in order to draw attention. They gotta eat too, I suppose. Did you see this post? Personally I read it in our Tiede-lehti (simply "Science-magazine") some months ago, but I couldn't find it again. Anyway, of course everyone in the field assumes it to be false and tries to disprove it (if they haven't already. ) with varying success. But it is still daunting and shameful fact, because according to their formulations and laws (that in current light are exactly right) we being Boltzmann's brains floating in vacuum is infinitely more likely than we and universe really existing

Then there's mathematician David Berlinski's good analysis regarding the fact just how unprecise modern science comes closer we get to "mind"

"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown. There is only one thing, and that which seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception, the Indian maya, as in a gallery of mirrors.” Erwin Schr

Last I heard it was still a theory with a lot that supports it exactly. it will be difficult, and probably impossible, to prove, but the evidence is pretty one-sided to date. semantics

Your English is partially a bit hard to understand right now, but I agree with you as far as I can tell How should it improve things to cut the observer out? Someone would then have to redefine/newly explain everything in quantum mechanics. I always loved the philosphical implications of physics and the way it always brought up new questions not only about the stuff the theory dealt with but on life and the "workings of the universe" so to speak. It tends to happen when I talk about things like this in english, sorry I'm not going to divert this thread to great topic about QM, PHILOSOPHY AND EVERYTHING, but for example Henry Stapp (known for his work on S-Matrix and Bell's Theorem and in particular for his studies into nature of consciousness) has written many, fantastic articles (and sections in his great, profound books) to point out absurdity of the idea. The vN model simply works perfectly (not surprise as Von Neumann is universally hailed as greatest mathematician of 20th century). It brings together and actually resolves some of the age old problems related to "physical" world and its relationship to consciousness. It made back in 50's completely theoretical musings such as one about Quantum Zeno Effect or neurological structure of brains (!!!!!) which were later verified and found perfectly fitting for the data. This quote concerns itself with neurology, but it fits here too: Bohm was genius physicist who was always troubled by this aspect of QM (for philosophical reasons as he was kinf of "materialist") and dedicated his life to get rid of it (and, like Einstein, he failed. Einstein actually admitted he did fail, but I don't know about Bohm), but others likeminded have fallen far behind him. Here's some fundamental basic problems explained in short space that are pretty much unfixable Of course the Orthodox Quantum Mechanics is still incomplete theory, but that's exactly what it says; it's incomplete, not fundamentally false. OKAY, AND THIS IS END OF THIS DISCUSSION, I DON'T WANT TO GET THIS PRUNED/LOCKED 'sides, Boltzmann's brains are funnier No, I don't Most curious to say the least. This was the best bit though: :p

If you're interested in what the hell I'm trying to say with Bolzmann's brains, read this

What, you mean worse for science than, um, splitting the atom? If you say so... Anyway, it never fails to amaze me when this kind of highly speculative (and for the most part, poorly understood) cutting-edge science is turned into a modern-day bogeyman. Especially in the mainstream media. I mean, it's obvious that being erased from existance by a false vacuum system destabilizing at an unspecified time in the future is a much more credible and serious threat than coronary disease. How can anyone not see this?! Also, I don't understand how this is related to the (misleading) idea that "observing" the system may reset its quantum state clock. Is any of that what you were referring to, or...? Hey, Quantum Mechanics was the greatest and most philosophically profound foundation in science since Galileo or Newton! QM mechanics ftw. (if I didn't find math so boring that's what I propably would've ended up to study ) Ahh, thank you! That's what I was referring to It's not related to observer effect, LHC or QM in anyway, but this "and then suddenly decide it'd like to do some universal remodelling" reminded me of the concept. ( As for the "Observer effect", it is still the underlying, many times tested presumption of all reigning models and after Von Neumann's rigid, great formulations it trancended the epistemological boundaries* of Copenhagen Interprepation by getting everything "in" quantum system and thus resolving the artificial boundary between system being observed and the observer. All major views (Transactional interprepation is pretty much same and propably coexistant, Von Neumann model is the one that is actually used in practice, Bohm's and Penrose's models are based on it as is modern interprepations of Wheeler etc. ) or "interprepations" rest on the fact. Only Bohm managed to create with his pilot wave model etc. interprepation that yielded same empirical results, but even it failed utterly in eliminating Process 1 which was only possible conclusion really, as he based his model on vN model and then just like that took away core piece of it. And then there's problem bohmian mechanics was never expanded to many core fields of study... Personally I find the whole deal funny - it is obvious Quantum Observer isn't only entity "observing", but the idea that quantum theory must be "improved" by utter omission of observer is very questionable and like Heisenbeirg said, very unlikely to succeed. It would underminde perhaps the most major philosophical advance QM mechanics gave us and we'd end up with hard problem of consciousness and all things related to it back to the starting point. QM finally brought two major natures of reality back together after Newton artificially splitted them apart - thing he was painfully conscious about as seen by his musings with idea of "occult force" that led to scoff and distate by his physicist fellows - with classical mechanics. And then there's the whole deal that "particles" at QM level are very hard and unintuitive to talk about as matter (of course matter as classically conceived doesn't exist at all) but are perfectly formutable and talkable if regarded as information. Funny that this came up as I'm currently reading book of philosophy of science, "Science's Guillotine" by K.V Laurikainen, one of the most prominent finnish physicists today. It talks - although not giving much new information to me - a lot about this whole deal, giving chapter for whole quest to eradicate observer and their failures. *well, as well as possible as science is epistemological and not ontological Anyway, this part is off-topic, so sorry for the ramble. ) Uuhh, carry on. Interview with Higgs, check it out edit: "What, you mean worse for science than, um, splitting the atom? If you say so..." Oh, if you mean with this amount of quantum mysticism generated around the science, yes, then you have a point. "I don't know why that's the case but it's propably quantum!" Heh... Then again one must too remember very profound and wise words of Schroedinger (he was always the fastest one to notice philosophical implications of their findings while others were still baffled) about how science would actually benefit from including elements from eastern mysticism after stripping few unneeded, silly ideas (ie reincarnation) out. Scroedinger was such a great man and personally my hero out of 20th century scientists. Typically scientists lacks the nyances of philosophical thought and arguing. Philosophers on the other hand often lack deep insight of science's foundings as they're not specialists. People like Schroedinger in where these two sides come so perfectly together are rare glimpses of true brilliance among humans. edit2: the DANGER in Boltzmann's brains stems from the fact it is supposed to have certain "godlike" qualities. Namely the ability to formulate reality again. After all it is faster to create informational structures than actually study them and gulping and chewing information is very raidon d'etre for these "things". And then it raises the solipstic creepy thought what if I'm only Boltzmann's brain and outer reality is just some sort of fabrication from my part? And THAT is deadly for science. edit3: what is most scary they're PREDICTED to happen in some point if given enough time. That's why cosmologists have tried to defeat the problem - prolly succesfully - by noting that universally likely don't "live" long enough for them to appear

well, I AM dead serious here. It was the most goofiest thing I've read in science magazine since like... ever

Even once it starts colliding, there's still no guarantee it'd ruin the world straight away. It could just as easily run seamlessly for 8 years and then suddenly decide it'd like to do some universal remodelling, stimulating vacuum metastability bubble nucleation. It's all probabilistic. But hey, cosmic rays, right? Ehh, LHC doesn't decide anything. It's just exceptionally powerful and unique measuring device (+ other stuff) It would be a lot cooler if LHC would "evolve" into those brains-floating-in-space entitities* *yeah, it's serious "formulation" or possibility or whatever you want to call it. Of course the mere idea of some solipstic "brain" screwing up reality and propably annihilating us in the process is more than little bit harmful for science so astronomers have tried to dispell it by making claims that universe won't "live" long enough for these anomalies to happen They were called Bolzam's or Boltzman's or Bohnman's or something like that Brains

I got bored of Van Halen's shredding soon lol David Gilmour - No Way

Bob Dylan - Tombstone Blues Mama's in the fact'ry She ain't got no shoes Daddy's in the alley He's lookin' for the fuse I'm in the streets With the tombstone blues

Van Halen - Running With the Devil

Van Halen - Panama (Live) badass

I was so disappointed when no **** hit the fan