You are here

SM58 but better

Page 4 of 4

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:09 pm
by dfira
Fascinating conversation. I think you're getting lost in good and bad, which are human defined traits that don't actually exist, in such a way that a 'forest' does not exist... - there are only trees, some closer together than others.

Given that, it is more accurate to describe people as inherently opportunistic, rather than one way or another. We should favour systems that favour good opportunities over the ones that favour the bad; you quickly see systems such as governments/mafias, those that rule by force or threat of violence, rather than systems that seek out reason, are what make this world a dark place.

I voluntarily lend authority to an architect because his method of construction can be reasoned by first principles. I do not accept submission to a state to be anything other than slavery.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:24 pm
by CS70
Tim Gillett wrote:
Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Arpangel wrote:...his knowledge of what would make certain things happen to other things in circuit design was incredible.

As Arthur C. Clarke wrote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

Yes to those who dont understand the technology. The person most qualified to judge the abilities of an alleged expert is... another expert in the same field.

Yes, it's definitely a better option but it's important to keep in mind that it's far from perfect. Being human, experts can also biased in some form - and, like anybody else, often unaware of their biases. And whether and expert opinion or not is worth of consideration depends on the methods he/she uses and the form in which he/she communicates that opinion. "expert" alone is, alas, about personal recognition more than factual expertise. There's plenty "experts" on YouTube on all sorts of things.

Which is what leads to the scientific method and the scientific consensus: the method demands a reproducible way to produce an observation, plus a transparent way to use it to reach a conclusion. The consensus demands that the same observation and conclusion be reached independently by the majority of a large number of experts. It's a probability game.

So in a way a judgement is solid only when it's subject to experiment, can be followed and it's agreed upon by a sizable number of people who have done both.

Even that can lead to bad results of course, since it's sometimes hard to ensure to be sure that what you observing is what you're thinking you're observing (see Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" for a good example), and even independent experts will in the end use similar tools and conceptual frameworks, so group thinking can still creep in. But it's much rarer and since experts die and get replaced with other with different personalities and life situations, there's a very high chance that sooner or later someone will refuse the group thinking.

Sometimes it takes quite a bit. But forward we go, in bounces and leaps and the occasional lunch break. :)

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:38 pm
by ef37a
Ooo! "Your Biased Brain" New Scientist 29 Aug 2020.

First one to PM me an address gets a free copy!

Dave.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:07 am
by Arpangel
CS70 wrote:
Arpangel wrote: it certainly doesn’t come from evolution, I 'm not a Darwinian/quote]

What you decide to believe or not has nothing to do with what is...

But that’s the question, what "is" "it" things don’t just happen, or come from nowhere, the universe is an infinite sea of nothing, and we came out of nothing. It can’t happen.

:think:

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:15 am
by blinddrew
The universe is not a sea of nothing. There's loads of stuff it's just very spread out. But gravity still exists (as do other, smaller forces of attraction) so stuff comes together.
Betting against gravity rarely pays off in the long run. ;)

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:45 am
by Arpangel
blinddrew wrote:The universe is not a sea of nothing. There's loads of stuff it's just very spread out. But gravity still exists (as do other, smaller forces of attraction) so stuff comes together.
Betting against gravity rarely pays off in the long run. ;)

But it was a sea of nothing at one point, where did all this stuff come from?

:think:

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:13 pm
by CS70
Arpangel wrote:
CS70 wrote:
Arpangel wrote: it certainly doesn’t come from evolution, I 'm not a Darwinian/quote]

What you decide to believe or not has nothing to do with what is...

But that’s the question, what "is" "it" things don’t just happen, or come from nowhere, the universe is an infinite sea of nothing, and we came out of nothing. It can’t happen.

:think:

“What is” doesn’t mean anything particularly grand - it’s just what happens if you actually (could) try.

Arpangel may not believe in evolution, but it makes zero difference to whether or not the evolution mechanism applies, or whether or not it is a good description of what happens . The uniiverse cares nothing of our opinions, abs sometimes it’s a good thing, sometimes it’s not so good.

Nothing to say about the whys. These are between you and your rabbi.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:19 pm
by ef37a
Arpangel wrote:
blinddrew wrote:The universe is not a sea of nothing. There's loads of stuff it's just very spread out. But gravity still exists (as do other, smaller forces of attraction) so stuff comes together.
Betting against gravity rarely pays off in the long run. ;)

But it was a sea of nothing at one point, where did all this stuff come from?

:think:

Again, read the fekkin' books. There has for instance been a proposal for "White Holes" where stuff can come out but nothing can come in. The problem is, the observable universe is still too young they think for these to have appeared yet.

We have never learned anything by sitting on our arses going "Bleugh".

Dave.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:31 pm
by Arpangel
ef37a wrote:
Arpangel wrote:
blinddrew wrote:The universe is not a sea of nothing. There's loads of stuff it's just very spread out. But gravity still exists (as do other, smaller forces of attraction) so stuff comes together.
Betting against gravity rarely pays off in the long run. ;)

But it was a sea of nothing at one point, where did all this stuff come from?

:think:

Again, read the fekkin' books. There has for instance been a proposal for "White Holes" where stuff can come out but nothing can come in. The problem is, the observable universe is still too young they think for these to have appeared yet.

We have never learned anything by sitting on our arses going "Bleugh".

Dave.

It doesn’t matter if we go "Bleugh" read books or drink Gin, we still don’t know.
White holes, black holes, space, stuff, we can only speculate, it’s like science is good at homing in on the details, but not so good at the big picture, I guess that’s why religion is so popular for some people, but ultimately doesn’t have any answers either.
Hang on? Isn’t this thread supposed to be a bout a microphone? How on earth did we get into life, the universe, and everything?

:D :D :D :D :D

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:37 pm
by ef37a
Arpangel wrote:
blinddrew wrote:You just need to take it one stage further and appreciate that it's pretty much the same thing and it's all we need. :)

There are still a lot of things that cannot be explained, scientifically, or technically, where does instinct actually come from? it certainly doesn’t come from evolution, I’m not a Darwinian, why do we want to survive? who instigated that? what is love? we cannot and will not, be able to explain the fundamental questions about life that we all want to know, science is good at the superficial stuff, the utilities, the material would, but the real stuff still goes unanswered, and these are things we can’t touch, see, or feel, but they affect every one of us.

I think you started the rot about there^ matey.

Dave.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
by Arpangel
ef37a wrote:
Arpangel wrote:
blinddrew wrote:You just need to take it one stage further and appreciate that it's pretty much the same thing and it's all we need. :)

There are still a lot of things that cannot be explained, scientifically, or technically, where does instinct actually come from? it certainly doesn’t come from evolution, I’m not a Darwinian, why do we want to survive? who instigated that? what is love? we cannot and will not, be able to explain the fundamental questions about life that we all want to know, science is good at the superficial stuff, the utilities, the material would, but the real stuff still goes unanswered, and these are things we can’t touch, see, or feel, but they affect every one of us.

I think you started the rot about there^ matey.

Dave.

I’m having a very existential day.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:36 pm
by James Perrett
Arpangel wrote:But it was a sea of nothing at one point, where did all this stuff come from?

I was having this discussion with our 9 year old this morning. Apparently there was only energy once, then space moved sideways and the energy turned into mass.

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:57 pm
by CS70
Arpangel wrote:How on earth did we get into life, the universe, and everything?

A big bang! :bouncy:

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:03 pm
by dfira
CS70 wrote:
Arpangel wrote:How on earth did we get into life, the universe, and everything?

A big bang! :bouncy:

... Theory! :)

Re: SM58 but better

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:18 pm
by CS70
Image