Jan 23 2012: Interesting to learn that pattern-free and random are two different notions. To me, from a perspective of a Jazz musician, patterns are somewhat deliberate, and the best music – I would not say the most beautiful – arises when you emancipate yourself as a player from the pattern and spontaneously create music. Patterns that are new at first are not recognized as patterns. To me, 'pattern' is a cultural not a mathematical convention.
So, in short, I believe that it is quite misleading to use music for mathematical exercises that use concepts in an absolute sense. Also, it is quite misleading to use the term beauty in this absolute and technical sense. It is tautological or meaningless. Before one comes up with a mathematics of pattern-free music, one needs the mathematics of a listener. You cannot prove anything with an absolute series of tones. Schönberg did not invent Serial Music with the help of a formula, but by trial and error, his aesthetic sense for music, so mathematics comes after the fact.
Jun 18 2011: It did not answer this question. It provided an interpretation of the experiment without discussing the epistemological implications at all.
Jun 16 2011: Thx for the comments, I will gladly enlighten on what I meant:
Firstly, he did not 'show' anything (which is fine with me).
Secondly, one cannot make dull things less dull by bringing in things that have nothing to do with the dull things (this is what I call embellish, you can call it helpless entertainment).
Thirdly, I am no more a naysayer or a yea-sayer than you are. The comment section is for giving quick comments – positive and negative. It is utterly absurd to call someone a naysayer for expressing critique. Calling names involves no thought.
Fourthly, the bold notion about us being at two places at the same time is either a triviality or a fallacy disguised as an 'interesting idea'. In terms of mental states, for example, we are most of the time at two 'places' simultaneously (hating while loving someone, making opposite decisions at once etc. – amusingly, O'Connell wonders how consciousness would be structured if the body were at two places!), that is to say I m not against paradoxical claims. Paradox is truth. The point is that the nature of quantum effects is simply not transposable to or perceivable at macroscopic levels, and I don t see what the presented research is claiming that contradicts this notion. Obviously I disagree with the allover interpretation. If quantum effects were dominant at macro levels we would not need physicists to 'show' it to us. However, I do think that quantum phenomena are part of everyday life, but more in terms of mental processing. Also, It is a waste of time to imagine a future 'machine' – if this was suggested above – that will enable us to be at two places at once. This is no 'progressive' thinking. Only military minds or Sci-fi nerds think in that direction (which is fine with me in terms of Sci-fi).
Jun 13 2011: One can imagine a deterministic world whereas one cannot imagine a non-deterministic world. We cannot imagine it because the mathematical formalizations that we use to describe the world cannot be represented in image or in concreto (or how do you depict an object in 12 dimensions on a 2-D plane?). Since a great deal of our brain activity concerns visual processing we tend to favor world views that are 'imaginable'. We want to imagine it because we want to control it.
My point is that nobody actually understands what a non-deterministic universe means. Usually, aspects of a phenomenon that are 'not determined' are simply not known i.e. an actual cause for x is not known, hence, x is not determined. Then, one puts theoretical considerations into play and claims that x cannot be known fundamentally. However, even this restriction to knowledge may have its peculiar cause.
And in regard to free will: free will is either free or it is will. Considerations of determinism are not necessarily connected to this question. Different playground.
Jun 13 2011: O'Connell's suggestion that we one day may be at two places at once is ludicrous. He is trying to outline his research as imaginative and entertaining by embellishing it with nonsense, speculation and folk psychology (left/right brain kitsch). However, the truth is: world of quantum physics is dull from the point of view of a general audience. Obviously, O' Connell is a techno nerd with great skill, but certainly no philosopher or entertainer, which is OK with me – but please keep him away from vain TED milieu.
May 28 2011: If there is anything certain then that we don t 'control' our brains. Only 'control freaks' believe that they do, and subsequently that they can control others. It is called ideology.
Our brains control us. That s what this grey liquid does, for Millions of years now, and I don t complain. I think our control brains have done well, we adapted so that we can talk about the universe and consciousness ad lib. Great.
Also if you control your brain you cannot be creative. Brains are conservative – logics –, and being creative means to trick them - being logically non-logical etc.
May 28 2011: The terms DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY are misleading, first, because they are called dark (similar to black holes being called black), which is not really a scientific concept; secondly, because energy suggests that there may be an equivalent particle representing this 'energy' (where energy there matter), but as opposed to dark matter, as far as I know they have not come up even with a concept what dark energy could entail. So dark energy is not the equivalent of dark matter, but these names are given because the term dark stands for the term 'mysterious' or 'I don t know' – It could be called dark force or whatever.
TEDCred score: +0.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Scott Rickard: The beautiful math behind the ugliest music
So, in short, I believe that it is quite misleading to use music for mathematical exercises that use concepts in an absolute sense. Also, it is quite misleading to use the term beauty in this absolute and technical sense. It is tautological or meaningless. Before one comes up with a mathematics of pattern-free music, one needs the mathematics of a listener. You cannot prove anything with an absolute series of tones. Schönberg did not invent Serial Music with the help of a formula, but by trial and error, his aesthetic sense for music, so mathematics comes after the fact.
A reply on Talk: Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object
A reply on Talk: Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object
Firstly, he did not 'show' anything (which is fine with me).
Secondly, one cannot make dull things less dull by bringing in things that have nothing to do with the dull things (this is what I call embellish, you can call it helpless entertainment).
Thirdly, I am no more a naysayer or a yea-sayer than you are. The comment section is for giving quick comments – positive and negative. It is utterly absurd to call someone a naysayer for expressing critique. Calling names involves no thought.
Fourthly, the bold notion about us being at two places at the same time is either a triviality or a fallacy disguised as an 'interesting idea'. In terms of mental states, for example, we are most of the time at two 'places' simultaneously (hating while loving someone, making opposite decisions at once etc. – amusingly, O'Connell wonders how consciousness would be structured if the body were at two places!), that is to say I m not against paradoxical claims. Paradox is truth. The point is that the nature of quantum effects is simply not transposable to or perceivable at macroscopic levels, and I don t see what the presented research is claiming that contradicts this notion. Obviously I disagree with the allover interpretation. If quantum effects were dominant at macro levels we would not need physicists to 'show' it to us. However, I do think that quantum phenomena are part of everyday life, but more in terms of mental processing. Also, It is a waste of time to imagine a future 'machine' – if this was suggested above – that will enable us to be at two places at once. This is no 'progressive' thinking. Only military minds or Sci-fi nerds think in that direction (which is fine with me in terms of Sci-fi).
A comment on Conversation: Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
My point is that nobody actually understands what a non-deterministic universe means. Usually, aspects of a phenomenon that are 'not determined' are simply not known i.e. an actual cause for x is not known, hence, x is not determined. Then, one puts theoretical considerations into play and claims that x cannot be known fundamentally. However, even this restriction to knowledge may have its peculiar cause.
And in regard to free will: free will is either free or it is will. Considerations of determinism are not necessarily connected to this question. Different playground.
A comment on Talk: Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object
A reply on Talk: Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse
Our brains control us. That s what this grey liquid does, for Millions of years now, and I don t complain. I think our control brains have done well, we adapted so that we can talk about the universe and consciousness ad lib. Great.
Also if you control your brain you cannot be creative. Brains are conservative – logics –, and being creative means to trick them - being logically non-logical etc.
A comment on Talk: Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse