Pretentious? To be honest, I don't really know anything about it, save for a few elementary tidbits gleaned from leisure reading and 1st year academic stuff.
Wait until the people who actually do know what they're talking about to step in and tear it to bits.
The only book I can think of off hand that links all of that stuff today is The Emperors new Mind by Roger Penrose. Quite a fun book that talks about "life" in general from chemistry through to brains and A.I. is Creation:Life and how to make it by Steve Grand - in fact this is only one pound on amazon
( ... )
I actually own The Emperor's New Mind and have not got round to reading it yet, so I'll start with that and then possibly try Gleick's book, as I've been eying it
( ... )
Happy to meet up to chat about it when you're back in sunny Southampton - drop me a line or text.
You might be interested in getting the Steve Grand book I mentioned - a lot of that is talking about artificial life and modelling life on a computer. Worth a purchase £1 from amazon.
See, I see perceived randomness as being where a number of scenarios could occur and only one does and that it is proven using statistical methods to be unpredictable, with the usual 95% confidence intervals etc... However, I wonder if the thing that such occurrences may be deterministic in the sense that what causes the final result was nested into the matter and energies involved based on the cascade of interactions that had them there in the first place which in itself originates in their initial 'starting properties' - causing their trajectory through time, space etc to be based on what I'll term - the master template and its properties.
Just to make things difficult, we'll call this the null hypothesis ;)
There have been attempts by some physicists and mathematicians to see if the "randomness" of quantum theory is actually a deterministic theory more like classical physics. A lot of this is called hidden variable theory - Einstein was quite a big fan of this, and I know some modern days physicists are. Lee Smolin is one that springs to mind. However, it is certainly a contentious issue - and I think one that Holly's link discusses
( ... )
The fact that there was only one possible outcome to the universe/evolution of humankind sounds dangerously close to what some might call fate... but what fascinating subjects to ponder. Knowledge is power.
It's not the most easy going book in the world, and not all of his ideas are that mainstream (not that that's necessarily a bad thing) but it's all good stuff :)
Well fate is certainly valid under the framework I'm pondering, but without any mysticism in there to spoil it. Well, possibly my very flimsy pseudo-scientific lexibatics could be said to be mysticism in drag so to speak, but I'm trying to come at this logically if possible.
Comments 24
So thats a no i can't recommend anything :)
Reply
To be honest, I don't really know anything about it, save for a few elementary tidbits gleaned from leisure reading and 1st year academic stuff.
Wait until the people who actually do know what they're talking about to step in and tear it to bits.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You might be interested in getting the Steve Grand book I mentioned - a lot of that is talking about artificial life and modelling life on a computer. Worth a purchase £1 from amazon.
Reply
Reply
This would be a good defence in court though "sorry your honour but the energy states in the early universe made me do it".
Reply
However, I wonder if the thing that such occurrences may be deterministic in the sense that what causes the final result was nested into the matter and energies involved based on the cascade of interactions that had them there in the first place which in itself originates in their initial 'starting properties' - causing their trajectory through time, space etc to be based on what I'll term - the master template and its properties.
Just to make things difficult, we'll call this the null hypothesis ;)
Reply
Reply
*trots off to find Penrose book...*
Reply
It's not the most easy going book in the world, and not all of his ideas are that mainstream (not that that's necessarily a bad thing) but it's all good stuff :)
Reply
Well, possibly my very flimsy pseudo-scientific lexibatics could be said to be mysticism in drag so to speak, but I'm trying to come at this logically if possible.
Reply
Leave a comment