 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Parallel music
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 14 Nov 14 - 06:01 PM If there are interacting parallel worlds, under quantum theory, could there also be interacting parallel music (including folk) in the quantum universe? Anyone out there know for sure? Interacting parallel worlds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: michaelr Date: 14 Nov 14 - 07:25 PM Terry Pratchett knows. See his collaboration with Stephen Baxter The Long Earth. "The 'Long Earth' is a (possibly infinite) series of parallel worlds that are similar to Earth, which can be reached by using an inexpensive device called a "Stepper". The "close" worlds are almost identical to 'our' Earth (referred to as "Datum Earth"), others differ in greater and greater details, but all share one similarity: on none are there, or have there ever been, Homo sapiens - although the same cannot be said for earlier hominid species, especially Homo habilis. The book explores the theme of how humanity might develop when freed from resource constraints: one example Pratchett has cited is that wars result from lack of land – what would happen if no shortage of land (or gold or oil or food) existed?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 14 Nov 14 - 10:06 PM The human mind has an amazing ability to 'theorize' and create possibilities that we can't even begin to consider how to test for experimentally. Over 40 years ago, a guy I knew came up with the idea (new to him, but fairly common) that "we might be just atoms in some larger reality/universe". I tried to explain that the physics involved really wouldn't support the idea, but he wanted to believe it might be possible. Ever since Einstein made popular the idea of general relativity, physicists (and novelists) have embroidered 'what is' with 'what might be' in ever more complex ways. String theory, multiverses, 'membranes', wormholes ...and numerous variations on these ideas... can even be 'described' mathematically. The problem is, many mathematical concepts have no relation to physical entities. (Yes.. I know that some ideas... like black holes.. have been verified and need a lot more study, but we seem to be bound to study them from afar. So far, they 'seem' to be just interesting but important examples of how physical forces can... and must... interact in certain conditions.) I LOVE science fiction and am fascinated by the 'maybes' of the universe... but I am slightly bemused by the way new theories crop up. Perhaps someone will expand on "the music of the spheres" and take this thread into other dimensions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 15 Nov 14 - 05:02 AM You mean somewhere where old men with trousers up to their tits collect royalties for writing "The Wild Rover" whilst tradionalists insist "Blowing in the Wind" is a folk song because nobody knows who wrote it? 😇 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 08:01 AM Well Bill D, there are many folks who hold science fiction with suspect, as it seems logical to do so (after all, it is clearly fiction). However, attempting to make a suggestion that scientific fields such as physics, mathmatics and the study of various forces in the universe science falls into a similar, if not the same catagory as science fiction is not a reasoned persuit. I am surprised with such a suggestion by a learned man, if I understand your last post correctly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 15 Nov 14 - 08:23 AM I suppose to Bill, the Principia falls into his "we don't really know" stuff. Interestingly, the laws hold both for the cup of coffee I am staring at and the black holes they stare at up the Peru mountains. The "we are atoms" never really held together as it is styled on a Boehr representation that is more akin to the London Underground map. Science fiction can challenge us to go from "we observe and deduce" to "so how does that help us?" Most science fiction writers of note are and were visionaries and if you compare their prose, storyline etc to great fiction writers, you are missing the point somewhat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 15 Nov 14 - 09:14 AM If the question is "Is what we call folk music a logical consequence of our life form?", the clear answer is no. Even within our species in our universe, musical cultures and tastes vary considerably. More surprisingly, they change so quickly that the notion of "traditional music" is a fiction in itself: it is reinvented every decade or so. More surprisingly still, this also applies to cultures that do not seem to have changed in their material or economical bases at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Nov 14 - 09:50 AM Thought this as gonna be about harmony. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 10:01 AM "Is what we call folk music a logical consequence of our life form?" An interesting question, but not one that I had in mind. One often sees interviews of music and song writers, where they seem puzzled by where the inspiration for their music creation came from. From what we know, and can prove, all of our knowledge and inspiration is from an Earth source (excluding those that are without convincing evidence). Under some quantum theories, there is an interconnection among pieces of the universe. If valudated in some way, future scientists may open the doors to connect with far away places, in one manner or another, that are currently out of reach through traditional methods. It is within probability that in the countless solar systems that other life forms exist. Regardless of the life form, if that were the case, and a form of intelligent communication and society evolved, it is also probable that art and music was one result. With quantum theory, and interconnection, it is unlikely that life forms could establish a physial connection in an intact form. Obviously it is too early to put factual "meat on the bones" on what interconnection would mean and what possible doors it would open, if found to be more than a scientific theory. Thus, my question. Admittedly, it was a bit of a "tongue in cheek" question, mainly focused on those who have claimed to put great faith in science and scientists-and some who are more selective in what field of science trust lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,John P Date: 15 Nov 14 - 11:19 AM The answer is yes: If one can posit an alternate universe that is in many recognizable ways congruent with ours, one must assume the existence of some congruent form of folk music. Of course, the farther the alternate world is from congruency, the less the chances of there being anything recognizable to us as folk music (which would also be true of any other recognizable facet of culture). There could be many scholarly treatises on the differences in similarity between the folk music of various universes based on the strength of the congruity to our own. At some point, however, it doesn't matter if the non-similar civilization is in an alternate universe or merely in another part of this universe. Perhaps the slime creatures of a distant planet (or alternate universe) are having a discussion about the origin of a set of scent-poems and whether or not an odor with a known farter can be considered a folk smell. And then, of course, they could discuss different olfactorer's interpretations of the old smells and have an argument about whether or not they are flatulating them properly. To us it would just be a really stinky planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 11:28 AM One mans stink, is another's perfume;) ""The complete whole is the complete whole. So also is any part the complete whole... Forget about understanding and harmonizing and making all things one. The universe is already a harmonious oneness; just realize it."" (46 The Hua Hu Ching) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Airymouse Date: 15 Nov 14 - 11:44 AM I don't know any physics, but I know some people who do. One of them, for example, won the Fermi prize. I was always bothered by the idea that something could be in two different places at the same time, and I was told that a better way to think of it is that the probability that a particle is in one place is the same as the probability that it is in the other. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle promises that there is a positive number p such that the product of a particle's velocity (well momentum actually) times the possible change in it's position is greater than p. If the particle is cold (very cold) the first number is small so that the possible change in the particle's position must be large in order for the product of the two numbers to exceed p. Thus if a particle is cold, you don't know where it is. None of this rules out parallel universes, which are explained to people who can follow him by John Baez. BTW the distance between John Baez and Joan Baez is much greater than one letter would suggest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 12:04 PM ""One of the most remarkable things astronomers have found as they have looked ever farther out in space (and thus also further back in time) is that the laws of physics that apply here on earth also apply, as far as we can tell, everywhere else we have looked. There is no "diversity of physics" across the universe in the way that there is a diversity of human cultures around the world. In the micro-world of quantum physics, the most dramatic demonstration of interconnectedness is described by Bell's theorem. In 1964, John Bell showed that quantum theory predicted that any two particles that originated from a single source (such as two electrons born out of an energetic collision), would later behave as if they maintained some kind of on-going non-local connection. This connection can be revealed by measuring some property of each particle, such as the spin of each electron. It is instantaneous and unaffected by time or distance. According to Bell, these measurements should be more highly correlated than if the two particles were truly separate. Many experiments have now confirmed Bell's prediction. The implications of this are profound, since all matter comes from essentially a single source – the Big Bang. Thus Bell's theorem implies, at a quantum level, that the physical world is an inseparable whole. The old Newtonian idea that world is made up of separate objects that occasionally collide, but otherwise lead independent existences, turns out to be only a convenient approximation, applicable in only some situations."" Robert Gilman, Astrophysicist |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 15 Nov 14 - 12:26 PM i'm not convinced that music exists - i've never seen any. it could all just be a part of my imagination. and enjoyment of live music could be the consequence of collective imaginations (like religions are) in response to folk moving about on stage with instruments. actually, how do we know that a fiddle sounds the same to me as to the violin you are listening to (or imagine you are) If it makes any noise at all..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 12:36 PM I folk, therefore I am:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 12:43 PM My theory am is that bagpipe sounds are not music. I recognize tgat it is possible that others may perceive these sounds differently, as some seem to enjoy them? What they are, or where in the universe these annoying sounds originated, is yet another question begging an answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 12:44 PM My theory is that bagpipe sounds are not music. I recognize that it is others may perceive these sounds differently, as some seem to enjoy them? What they are, or where in the universe these annoying sounds originated, is yet another question that begs an answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 12:45 PM Parallel posts, where did that come from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 15 Nov 14 - 01:13 PM I should have realized that a short comment, written late at night, would not have enough disclaimers and parentheses. I was aware as I was writing that I didn't expand my point enough. I was not trying equate physics, mathematics and the study of various forces with science fiction , but that *because* there are so many competing ideas which cannot all be true, it behooves us to be wary of them as a category. Of course, most will say that they already do treat these theories AS merely theories, but (and here I am inserting psychology into the game) so many physicists & mathematicians find the game irresistible that the temptation to 'create a variation' with their own name attached in order to publish and achieve academic prominence may influence them. (I am reminded of the urge in music to 'cover' a good song- but with personalized changes in tempo, tune, and even revised lyrics.... often "change for the sake of change".) Am I getting any nearer making a point? I know that science operates on theory, test, revision, and more testing, and on & on.... I just suggest that in the case of theories of the very basis of reality, the line between testable science & 'science fiction' can blur a bit. Arthur C. Clarke tossed out several story lines in the 40s & 50s that made news later as 'all too accurate'... such as communications satellites... but these were at least 'testable', even if roundly debated at the time. Clarke himself toyed with all sorts of ideas about the paranormal, reincarnation...etc... but always kept a perspective about it all, and eventually dismissed most of that sort of speculation, not necessarily as 'impossible', but as beyond our ability to directly investigate. I 'suspect' he would treat 'multiverses' similarly I am reading every day about new discoveries in cosmology and attempts to map the background radiation of the Universe and discover 'dark matter & energy' that seems to be mathematically required, and I'd love to live long enough to see a real breakthrough. I am also ready, though dubious, to see any serious discoveries in the concepts of multi-dimensional space that go beyond mathematical descriptions. Oh well... Bill D. is rambling again... carry on.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 15 Nov 14 - 01:18 PM Bagpipes? They stimulate certain cultures on a visceral level! Whether they are 'music' is a subjective debate... much like 'rap'. ☺ Ohhh... parallel posts! That indicate two membranes briefly touched! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 01:49 PM Of course scientists, in all fields of science are eager to put forward variations to theories, that is what makes science vibrant and retains its momentum. However, unlike science fiction, which is entertainement, based on odd notions (even visions) in a writers mind, scientific theories are built on to established science knowledge and are open to scientific challenge. Rarely does one find a theory (one that holds up to challenges) that takes a completly different direction, questioning what scientists formerly held as true. Quantum theory-while controversial and newer thinking, did just that. I submit that just because a scientific theory, often math and physics based, is complex and difficult to understand, is counter to what we observe all around us every day, and reaches out beyond our sight to take us in a different direction from what was known before, does not make it any less "scientific" in nature, or less grounded-or, even makes it "like philosophy". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 15 Nov 14 - 03:38 PM My attitude is that whether a theory is less "scientific" in nature" soon becomes linguistic and the discussion takes much care to be sure people are using their terms in compatible ways. Thus, it can move from 'philosophical' to 'scientific' when some sort of pragmatic test of it become possible. I simply 'like' to keep categories carefully (as carefully as possible) defined and separate. I often find terms to be (probably subconsciously) I am not suggesting that physicists, using higher math, stop pushing the limits of ideas...we need new ways of approaching some problems. I just see too much of it as a game of multidimensional fairy chess between players who have discarded the pieces & the board in favor of "knightness" and "movable squares". (I just coined all those terms except 'fairy chess') Let 'em play, says I... and let me know when they can DO some science that has implications for basic cosmology. (It seems ... to me at least.. that the debate over how to even discuss the concepts becomes a meta-debate over the language used. 130+ hours of philosophy sent my mind in many directions) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 15 Nov 14 - 03:45 PM If there is, I must suppose they're discussing the mirror of the debate so far? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 15 Nov 14 - 04:17 PM quantum mechanics I suspect you may be guilty of putting all scientists in these fields"in the same basket", Bill D. Even Pete wisely avoided such a pitfall. Advances in cosmology are slow, when compared with many other fields of science, as it is complex, costly and they most often rely on advances in new and expensive equipment.But, it is difficult for me to imagine such advances without the contribution of both mathmatical scientists and physicists? Quite often we only see the advances, without understanding the contributions made by many varied fields of science and advanced engineering. Who can imagine the future advances, (those beyond our lifetime) which will most likely be fueled by their investments being made today? So, you are seeing real-world examples (those easily recognizable) of contributions resulting from advances in quantum physics (mechanics). Above are a few, though I suspect you could easily find more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 15 Nov 14 - 09:44 PM All in the same basket? Hardly.... I tried... not well enough it seems... to refer to a sub-current of academic posturing which can come in the disguise of "conceptual cosmology" with no immediate content. I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty or fakery...the entire community of theoretical physics & cosmology has developed a self-perpetuating system of rewarding the most interesting attempts, no matter how far out. It's not 'quite' "The Emperors New Clothes", as no one planned to deceive anyone, but there is lots of nodding wisely and weaving patterns on imaginary looms, which they explain to each other and occasionally give interviews to science writers to reinforce the public's belief that they are 'onto a new notion about everything'.... and who is in a position to argue? *I* certainly can't follow the math... I am limited to puzzling over the language and wondering if they have, like economists, as many answers as required to justify being an economist. Theoreticians like Lemaître, Hubble and Gamow worked on ...umm... problems. They measured, calculated and applied their theories. Likewise, all the examples in your link dealt with seeing what quantum physics could suggest in application to known phenomena. Many of the recent ideas feel a bit like solutions in search of a problem, in that they postulate entities which then require other entities to be postulated in order to support each other. (Lordy, I am having trouble with my own metaphors. I think I see it as a bit like theology. Once one believes in a basic set of postulates, there's no end to the rationalizations required to juggle all the 'what ifs'.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:35 AM An infinite number of bagpipe players? Just think, one could be banging out a tune. Makes you wonder who wrote Hamlet.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 16 Nov 14 - 04:24 AM All that to say the Universe is complex, as is the research, Bill D? Fortunately, some smart folks have not resigned to this and have dedicated their careers and mental processes to help to contribute knowledge to help us move forward in the understanding of the Cosmos. Yes, quantum research has added value to what we already know on our planet. That is nirmally how science works. I see the only eason I gave the examples got lost on you-oh well. As noted earlier, big science requires big dollars-and scientists frequently compete for funds. Part of this funding competition, especially for University based research, involves engaging in media exposure to increase public interest and to garner funds. But, I suspect you already know that and just forgot it as you got caught up in your monologue:) As I noted earlier, these folks are working in a complex field of science that does not have the advantages of "being there". And, yes, like with many fields of science, there are competing theories to be worked out, dead ends, and surprising and mind boggling findings. Just because it us a complex field and some may not see a personal gain in their lifetime from the efforts, does not mean the knowledge gained (and there are advances) may be important to future generations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 16 Nov 14 - 04:27 AM I suspect you may have adaquate wind resources for an infinate number of bagpipes, Musket:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 16 Nov 14 - 05:46 AM If infinate (sic) defines a number, I can supply the wind. Let your wind blow free, Wherever you may be, Church or chapel, Let the fucker rattle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 14 - 03:04 PM " But, I suspect you already know that and just forgot it as you got caught up in your monologue:)" Monologue done too late at night on too little sleep... and as I tried to say, needs many qualifications in order to respond in detail to YOUR points, as well as to make my own often obscure point. I DO admit and agree that pure speculative research and theorizing has its place and is often tied to grants & other $$$$. I simply feel that there is a difference in kind that needs to be kept in mind when perusing theories about multiverses and infinite 'membranes'..etc. I almost never see any comment on how we'd actually find these (or recognize them if they bit us in the butt ;>] ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: olddude Date: 16 Nov 14 - 04:10 PM That's why I put tape on my mirrors so I don't fall into a different universe where only bagpipes live |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 14 - 09:25 PM even worse, Dan bagpipes..and |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 14 - 03:08 PM Whenever I hear the pipes I want to put on my kilt and go rustle a flock of sheep.... Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 17 Nov 14 - 03:19 PM Rustle... Euphemism? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 17 Nov 14 - 03:33 PM Many odd things on the edge of "what we know" were first figured out by these data processing scientists before they were discovered later by cosmology scientists. Black holes are one example. While they may have eventually been discovered without the theories, the theory that they should exist stimulated the search for examples in far away places. While many if these theories don't mean much for our lifetime, it may be a different scenario for tgevfuture of some of our scattered dna, that most of us have made an investment. Personally, while some theories go over my head, I find many if them quite interesting, especially for the future possibilities some seem to present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,Stim Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:32 PM No offense intended, but what is this thread even about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:51 PM Er--Musket, wouldn't that be more of a "Ewe-phemism?" Don Firth (said sheepishly....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: olddude Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:10 AM Does the other universe play beatles records backwards? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: olddude Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:11 AM Stim.. Nobody does know what the thread is about but it never stopped us before |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,Stim Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:30 AM It was foolish of me to ask. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:09 AM "Bohr's standpoint, that a space-time description is impossible, I reject a limine. Physics does not consist only of atomic research, science does not consist only of physics, and life does not consist only of science. The aim of atomic research is to fit our empirical knowledge concerning it into our other thinking. All of this other thinking, so far as it concerns the outer world, is active in space and time. If it cannot be fitted into space and time, then it fails in its whole aim and one does not know what purpose it really serves." ― Erwin Schrödinger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:10 AM "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." ― Erwin Schrödinger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:15 AM ""There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."" Alfred North Whitehead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:21 AM According to Rutherford, science is physics. The rest is just stamp collecting. Schrödinger and his cat (actually Einstein's cat but poor old Erwin's views were expendable) sought to take the piss out of Heisenberg but inadvertently described probability and uncertainty rather well. The op speaks of parallel, so one would expect everything to be the same? If it were different, Bach would be known for writing short tunes and Status Quo songs would have cadences that give us an idea of infinity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:38 AM July 30, 2014, New Scientist, Nature, PhysicsWorld ""Quantum theory indicates that nature is not deterministic.... if your only tool is a hammer, then you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail."" Our earthy perception may impact our thinking about how material and forces in the universe, and possibly beyond, behaves and impacts each other? My understanding is that under quantum interconnectivity everthing, especially the very small, that was oringinally connected retains interconnected, regardless of distance. New theories take this beyond the once connected (see link). I have not seen science theories under quantum that rule out any diversity related to interconnectivity, including potentially music (waves)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 18 Nov 14 - 11:59 AM We Pastafarians are very much into string theory. It glorifies the noodly one. Watch out with the interconnectivity stuff. Dirk Gently may have to investigate you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:18 PM Are you trying to string us along, with dickless urban gentrification? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: olddude Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:56 PM I reject your reality and impose my own |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 18 Nov 14 - 02:23 PM What's worse than the Spanish Inquisition? The Olddude Imposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: olddude Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:03 PM and you may ask what position is that and the answer is Laying on the couch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 19 Nov 14 - 07:57 AM Couch alien |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 20 Nov 14 - 03:18 AM ""I guess when you turn off the main road, you have to be prepared to see some funny houses."" Stephen King |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 20 Nov 14 - 02:40 PM Physics tells us that all things moved towards entropy - which seems to be a state of nothing, devoid of energy. Therefore, in a parallel universe, music is played backwards, so that the forward movement we generate toward a musical conclusion is nullified by the backward movement of music in the parallel universe. I will send Joe eight measures of 'Irish Washerwoman' played backwards so you can see what I mean. It is remarkable how devoid of charm it is. Life in a parallel universe is probably bland and boring. Click to play (joeweb) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 20 Nov 14 - 04:20 PM I dunno leeneia, your conclusion does not seem to consider new theories in quantum physics., especially if Joe were intertwined with such an Irish Washerwoman ( and I am not starting any rumours). See the link below. ""In the new story of the arrow of time, it is the loss of information through quantum entanglement, rather than a subjective lack of human knowledge, that drives a cup of coffee into equilibrium with the surrounding room. The room eventually equilibrates with the outside environment, and the environment drifts even more slowly toward equilibrium with the rest of the universe. The giants of 19th century thermodynamics viewed this process as a gradual dispersal of energy that increases the overall entropy, or disorder, of the universe. Today, Lloyd, Popescu and others in their field see the arrow of time differently. In their view, information becomes increasingly diffuse, but it never disappears completely. So, they assert, although entropy increases locally, the overall entropy of the universe stays constant at zero. "The universe as a whole is in a pure state," Lloyd said. "But individual pieces of it, because they are entangled with the rest of the universe, are in mixtures."" New Quantum Theory Could Explain the Flow of Time |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:03 PM Leeneia's backwards washerwoman posted, such as it is....see link in her post above. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Musket Date: 21 Nov 14 - 03:10 AM Think of all the traditional songs that suddenly have happy endings backwards? Matty Groves ends up getting laid for starters. Although Spencer the Rover has no experiences to contemplate and poor Paddy gets to dig up the railway. Actually, you will find that songs would go on forever because the perfect cadence would be at the beginning not the end of the tune and you can't end on an imperfect.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:28 AM Parallel posts are very necessary when fencing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:00 AM Good fencing keeps the livestock in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:31 AM Just what I said, Ed. :) Joe, whatdya mean "such as it is"? Where do you think Prokofiev and Raskolnikov got their musical themes? They put O'Neill's Music of Ireland on the music stand, turned it upside down, and started copying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Parallel music From: Ed T Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:47 AM ;) leeneia |
?file=Alien.png){kind=link}