Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 97 of 97

Thread: song reco

  1. #81
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    What's this about a "theory of everything?"
    A theory that I worked on, for about the last thirty-five years, in my spare time off and on. Most persons move on, from one interest to another, but, I kept at it, the same thing. For many years, I had no idea where it could lead, and how long before it would take a definite form, if ever. A lot of the heavy lifting with trying and discarding many things. As I settled into the latter part of my life, it was a bit easier to let up, especially after I met my own partner in life. Stuff like bridge, and crosswords, etc, are a faint memory. Lots of other similar puzzles including the two-handed typewriter words. Those types of puzzles clashed with what I was trying do. Less serious fun on some of the gambling sites got my mind off it, the more I was able to find a connecting thread through it. To a large extend, thinking that the next bit worked kept me at it, often the mistaken thoughts. I never really thought, from day to day, that each day was the day, but, seeing things in different ways is exciting enough that I fooled myself into keeping at it.

    Lots of ways to look at a theory of everything. Lots to go with, say, the dimensional equation route. Every few years, I tried to find a way to calibrate it using the table of the chemical or periodic elements. About three years ago, this bit started to go in the direction of working out in terms of the numbers. Working in terms of the physics takes a long, long time to get anywhere, but, then, well, it has to be proved in some way, another thing that might not happen. Numbers are a lot easier to work with, if you can find numbers that start to work out together, but, you run the chance that such numbers can't be found. That a theory of everything isn't so simple, in a sense. That there is some underlying way every thing comes together.

    My view is that nothing can be unified until everything is, that you can't really define anything until everything, including the way to do this sort of thing. That a theory of everything involves every thing, in the sense that no one thing is the theory, itself. You can't take even, eg, Einstein's way of doing physics over any other way of finding a theory of everything. It can't be any one number, equation, or even any one approach. Beyond this, a theory of everything must end somehow, it can't be evermore complex. I think that it must come to an end in the things that already make it up. After forming one dimension out of others, of different specific physics, on and there, there must be a trivial or non- dimension overall that forms automatically within all of them. A no-theme theme.

    Anyway, the gambling stuff was a fun outlet, but, I want to focus on my own stuff now. I think that doing so here is a fun way, initially, because I can work on the explanation, and iron out a lot of the putting it together in terms of a straightforward way. Lots of editing, etc, with any write-up. Things are never so simple as, well, "Now I know it all, will write it all down, this is it because it's day-666 of year-911. Ha. I imagine that no one here much cares, but, I don't care about this. A bit of further motivation, and fun.
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  2. #82
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    2,007
    I thought "theory of everything" sounded familiar I came across Langen's ''theory of everything" some time ago.

    see, from wiki ...



    "Langan has developed an idea he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU)[3][6][8] which he maintains "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase".[9] He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology"[3] additionally contending that with CTMU he "can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[1][4] Even so, Langan does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma".[9] "
    What, Me Worry?

  3. #83
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    2,007
    Back to music (not "the music of the spheres")...

    For the past several months I've bought and listened over and over to comps from a group "Above and Beyond" and anjunabeats.

    Here's one ...

    What, Me Worry?

  4. #84
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    I thought "theory of everything" sounded familiar I came across Langen's ''theory of everything" some time ago.

    see, from wiki ...



    "Langan has developed an idea he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU)[3][6][8] which he maintains "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase".[9] He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology"[3] additionally contending that with CTMU he "can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[1][4] Even so, Langan does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma".[9] "
    Okay, well, just getting around to this. I anticipated correctly, this time, that you would have more to write about it. Usually, I try to leave the more-probing stuff, until I feel like looking it. More and more on line, I had to avoid threads, etc, with any mention of math or other problems because such was too distracting.

    I was joking around about the subject matter of the following, with Boz, a couple of weeks ago. Let me look up that post. Here it is.

    Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
    There can be no variance, in the grand scheme of things.
    Can we get an equation for that? Just to prove how fucked up you truly are?
    Being "fucked up" isn't sufficient, but, it is necessary.

    The equation of "queation". Ha.
    https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...light=queation

    This was just my on-the-spot putting creation plus equation equal to "queation". Just a made-up word, on the fly, in the spirit of mind and matter. To follow Boz's lead. Likely, he didn't know where.

    Yes, my theory of everything does account for also mind. It has to do with what the matter can't be. The "continuity" of (pure) matter must exist as a point-in, so that it's contained; similarly, (pure) nothingness must exist as a point-out, so that it's not contained. Were matter unbound, then what could stop it from being everywhere? Similarly, were nothingness contained, then how could it fill (essentially empty) space? So, to begin to look at how matter/nothingness can be something more than a point, then enters the mind. There are dimensions of mind, as well. So many other comments. For example, just as matter is low-energy vibrations - doesn't exist - nor does the mind really exist. Unless we get into (non-conventional) other definitions for such.

    Is that Langan guy the genuis, with the extroadinarily high iq, that posters wrote about at the Wizard's, years ago? I recall looking up a similar sounding name on line. Something about space-time manifolds, and, proving out a God. I can't recall much more. I'm not sure what his concept of God is, so, can't comment further, except to write that God can't be anything like us - the mistake that, I think, most atheists prefer to perpetuate. Perhaps, God is a type of limit function at which point the numbers and the physics they describe become indistinguishable. Where one number is another, in some sense, and, say, mass is the same as energy. Transcendental stuff. A way to derive pi, before the sets of integers, etc.

    As far as imaginary time, well, this was Hawking's way to avoid a space-time singularity, ie, to have a universe that was always here. Easier to make sense of, at least no God required. Complex numbers aren't reducible to real numbers, to a point in the real sense. Among many other things, Wheeler was into quantum entanglement, mostly by thought experiments. A universe that is still creating itself.

    In delving into information theory as a foundation for quantum mechanical theory, I encountered again John Wheeler's revolutionary thesis that we create the past by observing it--"The Participatory Universe".
    I don't recall reading about Wheeler's take on God. I guess that there wasn't one. With most theoretical physicists, and, other so-called smarties, I think, they believe in God, in some sense, or, just aren't sure. People follow the stereotype that they are all atheists, because of their work, but, certainly, this isn't the case. If Relativity Theory is correct, then it can't be possible to conclusively determine which frames of reference are the correct ones. If the universe extends to mind, too, then the same problems with mind.

    Not sure how to get one of the above theories out of the others, but, sure that a correct theory of everything can't be a mix of others. I mean, were one of them correct, then all would be correct, would have already led to the others.

    Trailing off my previous post, I had, in passing collected, or thought of again, a few answers to more penetrating questions that I more expected here, but, those may wait for another day.
    Last edited by Garnabby; 01-02-2021 at 03:53 PM.
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  5. #85
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    Not following your comments about dates and time, but yes, a lot of good music back in 1969.

    The tunes kept coming in 1970: I always liked this one ...

    This wasn't so bad.

    Generally, I don't get your taste in music. At least not that on a gambling forum.

    It appears that the ability of our musical preferences to be influenced peaks in these teenage years. This could be due to a peak in our openness to experience, or perhaps there’s an element of nostalgia for our reckless youth. Either way, this window seems to shut during the late twenties, after which we are doomed to listen to the same three bands until our dying days.
    Gasser says, as we grow, our musical tastes really help us to forge our individual identities — especially distinct from our parents. “Music becomes that stake in the ground — ‘this is who I am,’” says Gasser. “But at the same time, the music people listened to at an early age becomes their native home comfort music. When they grow up, that music will be part of who they are, tied in with memories and growing up. All of these powers are why music is so important to us."
    Those with a musical preference for Mozart and Bach may be more intelligent than people who prefer words in their music.

    That's according to scientists who say they've found a link between brain power and instrumental music, such as classical and jazz.

    More than four-hundred students were observed for the study, which took place in Croatia and was conducted by research scholars from Oxford Brookes University.

    Their results showed that people with lower intellect preferred music with lyrics, rather than complex orchestrations.

    It reaffirms the popular theory by Satoshi Kanazawa, known as the Savanna-IQ hypothesis, which links intellect with novel or uncommon stimuli.

    Detailed: More than four-hundred students were observed for the study, which took place in Croatia and was conducted by research scholars from Oxford Brookes University

    The study's author, Elena Racevska, surveyed 467 teenagers by asking them to perform an intelligence test.

    They were then asked to rank musical genres in order of preference.

    Those who earned the highest IQ scores displayed a clear preference for instrumental music, it found.
    One thing that is immediately clear when you start asking scientists about their favourite music is that they have varied tastes. There is no specific type of “scientists’ favourite music”. I asked scientists on Twitter to tell me their favourite music, and the responses covered almost every genre.

    A lot of scientists listen to different kinds of music depending on what they’re doing at that moment. Energetic music keeps them active in the lab while running experiments, but they might switch to classical or instrumental music when they need to sit down to write a paper.

    This variety in music choice – both between individual scientists and for different situations – is part of the reason I’m skeptical when people suggests that scientists like music because they’re supposedly attracted to the mathematical concepts behind it.
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  6. #86


    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  7. #87
    "A good man may wander because he has not found his destiny, but any evil [man] has already been sold one." -Beercan de Borde


    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  8. #88


    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  9. #89

  10. #90
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  11. #91
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  12. #92

  13. #93
    This music makes sense, if music is supposed to make sense.

    Now that I think of it, I took music in high school up to grade-13. I remember the grade-13 part because it was the senior band that did the school performances. Not that many. I already played guitar, so it was natural to take up string bass, in grade-9. I had to use a bow for that sort of music. Using a bow on such heavy strings takes a long time to get the hand strength for a deep rich sound. Up until grade-13, I had a teacher who used to belong to the group, Ocean. Unfortunately, he left, and, was replaced with a new guy, in my senior year. The new guy didn't really seem into it, was more demanding, not so easy going.
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  14. #94
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    2,007
    All aboard the Hellbound Train, now arriving at track nine ...

    What, Me Worry?

  15. #95
    Cheer up MrV! What's left of your life will be over, soon.

    Anyway, I get the further impression that you try for something spiritual by an obviously feigned and excessive reach for absurdity. To thus try to tap into pure forms of knowledge. Certainly, strictly speaking, philosophy has very little to do with science in general and specific. A theory of everything can't comment on such.

    I checked that there was a connection between some atheists, and spiritualism. It's fun to put things together, and, then, to see them already out there.

    Atheists Can Be Spiritual Too

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/athei...UpwQ52_P4h5_o8
    Every one, and everyone, supposedly, knows it all. Yet, no thing, nor nothing, is really and actually known to and understood by any one, or anyone.

    In gambling, the biggest suckers are the ones who think that they are beating the house. It always wins, unless it lets you win, to give you an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ


    Shut it down, Garnabby. ---> Anything, but a BS word.

    https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...y?partial=true

  16. #96

  17. #97
    Pretty good album if you like this sort of thing.
    Link takes you to the 14 song playlist.

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...eDYFggpSXrmw-Y


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. movie reco
    By tableplay in forum Movies, Media, and Television
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 01-10-2021, 08:44 PM
  2. "We're going to Vegas" song
    By MisterV in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 01:21 PM
  3. I'd Like to Dedicate this Song to Rob Singer
    By a2a3dseddie in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2014, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •