anonymoose0112
anonymoose0112:

raptros-underscore:

anonymoose0112:

raptros-underscore:

anonymoose0112:

olena:

Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
••••••
If you’ve ever picked this book up, you know it’s a gigantic, heavy monster. Please click through ( or { click here } ) & reblog to request that it be published on Kindle.
There are PDF’s available, but it’d be nice to have a high-quality ebook as they don’t read too well.

I too am a Strange Loop.

Oh. Hmm. Hofstadter. I guess it’d be nice even if I’m conflicted about his work.

CAN’T I ENJOY POPULAR UPPER-MIDDLE BROW READING WITHOUT THE INSINUATION THAT I MAY NOT ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES OF COMPUTATION THEORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS KTHX!

Well people do it all the time, so whatever.
This reminds of when Neal Stephenson was defending Leibniz’s monads thing. Tripped me the hell out because I kept thinking of like Haskell monads.

Oh sure, we all talk about issues outside our areas of special knowledge. It’s funny, to me, whenever you talk about something you’ve read on a subject that you thought was just awesome and someone with more knowledge of the thing is like “Yeah, it was okay…” and then you suddenly wonder just how little you know about a field. 

••••••
OS:
Funny where this went. There will always be those people who know more about something, but each party has two options:
The reader can act like they suddenly know everything about a topic, or remain inquisitive and question what they read.
The “expert” can remain patient and offer their knowledge to another, they can try to answer questions and explain (or summarize) what was missing in the material… or they can be an asshole and say things like “Oh yeah it was ok, for laymen who don’t understand anything but think they do… kthnxbai!”

anonymoose0112:

raptros-underscore:

anonymoose0112:

raptros-underscore:

anonymoose0112:

olena:

Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid


••••••

If you’ve ever picked this book up, you know it’s a gigantic, heavy monster. Please click through ( or { click here } ) & reblog to request that it be published on Kindle.

There are PDF’s available, but it’d be nice to have a high-quality ebook as they don’t read too well.

I too am a Strange Loop.

Oh. Hmm. Hofstadter. I guess it’d be nice even if I’m conflicted about his work.

CAN’T I ENJOY POPULAR UPPER-MIDDLE BROW READING WITHOUT THE INSINUATION THAT I MAY NOT ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES OF COMPUTATION THEORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS KTHX!

Well people do it all the time, so whatever.

This reminds of when Neal Stephenson was defending Leibniz’s monads thing. Tripped me the hell out because I kept thinking of like Haskell monads.

Oh sure, we all talk about issues outside our areas of special knowledge. It’s funny, to me, whenever you talk about something you’ve read on a subject that you thought was just awesome and someone with more knowledge of the thing is like “Yeah, it was okay…” and then you suddenly wonder just how little you know about a field. 

••••••

OS:

Funny where this went. There will always be those people who know more about something, but each party has two options:

The reader can act like they suddenly know everything about a topic, or remain inquisitive and question what they read.

The “expert” can remain patient and offer their knowledge to another, they can try to answer questions and explain (or summarize) what was missing in the material… or they can be an asshole and say things like “Oh yeah it was ok, for laymen who don’t understand anything but think they do… kthnxbai!”

wildcat2030
“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”[1]

Bernard d’Espagnat

Bernard d’Espagnat (born 1921) is a French theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, and author, best known for his work on the nature of reality.

(via wildcat2030)

••••••

An edgy anthropocentric headline… I’ll bite.

I don’t agree with that quote, but I have no idea which facts or experiments he’s referring to, and the “Education and career” section make it clear that this guy isn’t pulling things out of his bum. Sounds like an interesting person.

I’m curious if he means the experiments affected by { observation }, in which case that’s not necessarily the conclusion to which one should jump. But I’d like to find out specifically what he’s talking about.

fuckyeahquantummechanics
Quantum Physics makes the seemingly preposterous claim that there is no “is” until an observer makes an observation.

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. (via schlahty)

••••••

Yes. But what’s left out is that an “observer” is not necessarily a conscious being, like a human. Nature is able to observe itself, through interactions between systems that record one another.