Comments on: Emergence

http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/ reality bizarres the standard Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:45:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1625 Psikillion Tue, 19 May 2009 12:27:23 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1625 @ X-Master Ok, so studying the object as a whole and studying the object split up into parts are not perfect, and we need a new view to combine the two. (repeating what you said in my own words) This is too simple! You bring together a group of people, some able to see the object as a whole and others being able to see the object in its parts. These people would still have all of their different beliefs, but be united to one cause. The more people, the better the view we get of a particular object! By: redefine http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1582 redefine Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:25:26 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1582 well i would say because the reductionist view is right. if it were possible to do that, the 'creativity' in such is an illusion, the creativity (as we use the term) comes from intelligently choosing different notes for an intended effect, not some inherent property of the music. the music itself is not creative, its the creation of the music that is creative. the real question i see is if this is a genuine representation of concious life, or is it just that, a mindless simulation. if it is truly random, i'm inclined to say the first (as i have some theories about true randomness and conciousness), but otherwise, its just a pretty pattern. also, i tried on my comp, it defaults to inf after 2^1023, which is 8.98*10^307. By: GoldenJoe http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1573 GoldenJoe Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:57:12 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1573 Good argument for experimentation. By: Alexander http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1549 Alexander Sun, 15 Mar 2009 06:03:03 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1549 Oh wait. You *can* write two to the twenty-four millionth... whoops. It has about 7½ million digits, but it's writable. You'll need a big piece of paper though... By: Alexander http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1548 Alexander Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:20:08 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1548 Wow... that whole concept of music being limited scared me for a second... like creativity would run out for a second. But then I crunched the numbers, and calculated how many possibilities three megabytes hold. The number of combinations would be equal to 2 to the power of the number of bits. And three megabytes translates to twenty-four million bits... So... Two to the tenth is roughly a thousand. Two to the fiftieth is in excess of a quadrillion. Two to the 300th... there aren't that many atoms in the universe. (Atoms, being ridiculously small, and the universe, being ridiculously huge). And a three-meg song... Two to the TWENTY-FOUR MILLIONTH possibilities. Don't try to calculate it, your calculator/computer will freeze up. It's so ridiculously large, it might as well be infinite. There's not enough matter in the universe to WRITE that number, for cryin' out loud! So, it's like they say: Don't worry, be happy. The potential for creativity will ALWAYS be there. And apparently, so will a gaping hole in reductionsim, for there are two things that can never be reduced to numers: possibility, and people. By: X-Master http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1547 X-Master Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:03:39 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1547 Studying objects as a whole. Well yes and no, reductionism has a few good points, so it shouldn't be throwen out entirely, what is needed is a new view, one that will take into account both the parts and the whole, studying them both about whatever it is you are trying to study to get a better understanding of it. At least thats the gist I can derive from up above. By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1546 Psikillion Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:35:41 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/03/10/emergence/#comment-1546 So are we supposed to study the object as a whole? Or is it talking about something else entirely? Currently I am confused, but I guess once you have compressed his ideas I could hopefully understand it better... And of course ask better questions... What you said about creativity sort of reminds me of the addendum of my idea of how we only have perspective truth. I might post it...