Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Beatle Who Got Away

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#41

Post by scratcheee »

simiones wrote: post #37
bigbluedots wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it isn't.

It almost certainly is - there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic (the interaction between a quantum system and a classical system, "measurement") - otherwise all of the rest of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics and general relativity are fully deterministic (though chaotic).

It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic that it feels like everything "should" be.

>there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic

In other words, we've managed to prove pretty much all of physics is built atop this one single phenomenon. You might as well say we've simulated lots of universe models on computers, and yet there is only a single universe model that has any chance of not being simulated on a computer (ie the one we're in), therefore all universes are probably simulated on computers. Sure, its a valid theory, but it begs the question of whether there is a universe at the bottom that isn't on a computer, or is it really an infinite line of computers stretching forever?

Non-determinism is inherently going to be at the bottom of the "layers" of physics, if it exists. If it feeds up to higher layers it will have to feed through each layer of the chain, so inherently we'd expect most layers of physics to deterministic, even if it exists. Therefore our intuition from higher layers isn't helpful in predicting lower layers unless we think those lower layers are built atop even lower layers below them.

Currently the most widely concidered deterministic theory is that there's a deterministic multiverse (ie all events we currently see as random are simply deterministic branches within the tree of all possibilities). But effectively that means the universe isn't actually deterministic, in the same way that if you have 5 boxes with 5 numbers in them, opening a box at random is not deterministic, even though opening all 5 simultaneously without an order _would_ be. The non-determinism is what we end up experiencing, rather than what happens within the multiverse, but it's still there (well, its not from a multiverse perspective, but it is from our perspective unless and until we find a way to see outside our branch of the multiverse).

There's other deterministic theories, but pretty much every theory is untestable, so more a question of faith than science.

Einstein famously agreed with your interpretation, but his invoking of god to make his case is quite appropriate.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#42

Post by schlupa »

brtkdotse wrote: post #14
babyshake wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that amazes me about the Beatles is that they were led by a musical genius. And then a second member of the band achieved the same level of musical genius (some would say an even greater level of genius). And then within a few years, a third member of the band that was just the rhythm guitarist demonstrated that he also achieved an astonishing level of musical genius. Especially for that time, this was incr…

I think Ringo is never given enough credit for his role in the band. While not the flashiest player, he laid down the groundwork of what a pop drumbeat is. Also, watching Get Back it become painfully apparent that Ringo is the elusive glue person without whom the Beatles probably would have fallen apart years prior.

Indeed. Watch Sina's youtube video on Ringo Starr where she explains the very special style he had and what makes his drumming stand out.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#43

Post by simiones »

scratcheee wrote: post #41
simiones wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost certainly is - there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic (the interaction between a quantum system and a classical system, "measurement") - otherwise all of the rest of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics and general relativity are fully deterministic (though chaotic).

It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic that it feels like everything "should" be. >there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic In other words, we've managed to prove pretty much all of physics is built atop this one single phenomenon. Yo…

> Non-determinism is inherently going to be at the bottom of the "layers" of physics, if it exists.

That's exactly the thing: the bottom layer (QM) is purely deterministic. It's not even chaotic: the wave function evolves through purely linear transformations. It's much more exact than Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics from this point of view. You can actually predict the exact value of the wave function through arbitrarily many transformations, even if you don't have a very exact initial state.

However, when we try to actually use this wavefunction to measure something, we get some weird non-determinism in the middle of the model. To accept it as an actual element of reality, you have to accept that reality is not reducible: you can't explain the behavior of, say, a ball by looking at the behavior of atoms composing the ball. Essentially, you could say that the atoms behave deterministically, but the ball behaves non-deterministically, according to something like an ontological version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

This is clearly logically inconsistent, so the actual CI treats the wavefunction as not being an element of reality - but then, we can't say anything about how atoms actually behave, we can only say how they behave in relation to classical objects.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#44

Post by subpixel »

wirrbel wrote: post #8
munchler wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power Yes, but The Beatles were at least an order of magnitude better than anyone could have reasonably expected.

Definitely. Especially surprising for a long time to me, given that their early songs seem really simple (She loves you...). And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs. So even before they published the first album they had a routine of hundreds of songs from memory. I think this cannot be underestimated as a…

A big difference is the source material. The Beatles didn’t have a very wide exposure to music, but they had a very deep one.

They grew up in an era when American R&B was literally revolutionizing the musical culture of Britain. And in crossing the pond and being selected by disc jockeys with rabid audiences, there was a distillation that took place.

So the Beatles in their youth were not just exposed to some American music - they were listening to the absolute best R&B ever created, and way more of it than most white kids in America were getting.

It’s fascinating that this sort of convergence of all the most incredible aspects of American roots music had to take place outside of the US, create genres like Skiffle (unheard of in America), and spit out kids like Paul McCartney who would go on to “invade” America with a sound that was familiar to US ears and yet something else entirely.

The magic still happens - see Amy Winehouse, the Scoundrels - but these are sort of like subsequent moon landings, despite being amazing in their own right.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#45

Post by songshu »

babyshake wrote: post #13
quxbar wrote: post #4

I tend to think of The Beatles as a fantastic world-spanning pachinko game. Once Ww2 ended and a mass boom of young people with disposable income crossed with new mass media markets and advances in recording distribution technology, it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. Heck, even the stadiums were a modern combination of improved bui…

The thing that amazes me about the Beatles is that they were led by a musical genius. And then a second member of the band achieved the same level of musical genius (some would say an even greater level of genius). And then within a few years, a third member of the band that was just the rhythm guitarist demonstrated that he also achieved an astonishing level of musical genius. Especially for that time, this was incr…

Listing the Beatles in order of genius is a fun game and endlessly debatable but it’s not clear to me who you are referring to respectively. It reads as if the first two you mention are Paul and John in some order, but that would leave the “rhythm guitarist” to be George, but he is more often described as the lead guitarist. If this was bait, you got me!

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#46

Post by JohnBooty »

quxbar wrote: post #4

I tend to think of The Beatles as a fantastic world-spanning pachinko game. Once Ww2 ended and a mass boom of young people with disposable income crossed with new mass media markets and advances in recording distribution technology, it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. Heck, even the stadiums were a modern combination of improved bui…

     it was inevitable that some act or another 
     would be the first-to-market with catchy 
     tunes and stadium-filling star power.
This is a profound misunderstanding of how weird and unlikely the Beatles phenomenon was.

Post-WWII acts with catchy tunes and star power were already abundant before the Beatles. They were not special in that regard.

What was unique about the cosmic accident that was the Beatles?

1. Happened to be paired with a (initially reluctant) producer of classical music

2. Achieved worldwide fame and chart dominance (this part is not unique, but its place in the sequence of events is crucial)

3. Somehow this popularity crossed over into the US, the world's largest market, when American response to prior British acts was lukewarm at best

4. After achieving worldwide superstardom, decided to push the boundaries of pop music

5. Conveniently had a producer who could help with and encourage this transformation

6. Decided to give up touring at the height of their fame, to focus exclusively on studio albums, and were able to do this thanks to already having achieved megastardom and financial independence

7. They accomplished all of this in, essentially, a single decade and then called it quits

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#47

Post by dsr_ »

subpixel wrote: post #40
brtkdotse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really shines through in Get Back - Paul, John and (to a lesser extent) George are flailing about, causing drama but Ringo just patiently sits behind his drums and as soon as anyone starts playing he's there to pick up the beat.

My musician friends were offended at the Beatles’ musicianship watching that film. It’s hard to realize that being great isn’t good enough, you need lightning to strike and you need to be there when it happens.

Interesting. The biggest thing I took away from it was how unplanned everything was.

I can no longer listen to a Beatles album and ask "why did they decide to do this, and then that?" as I used to. Now I know that nobody had a plan: they had an infinite series of accidents and then edited -- or not.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#48

Post by beaconstudios »

scratcheee wrote: post #41
simiones wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost certainly is - there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic (the interaction between a quantum system and a classical system, "measurement") - otherwise all of the rest of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics and general relativity are fully deterministic (though chaotic).

It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic that it feels like everything "should" be. >there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic In other words, we've managed to prove pretty much all of physics is built atop this one single phenomenon. Yo…

> It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic

That's how empirical proof works though - you can't "prove" something conclusively based on evidence, you can only disprove it or continue to add examples of the model matching reality. That's falsifiability.

> Currently the most widely concidered deterministic theory is that there's a deterministic multiverse

None of these are provable either way, because we can't prove theories that rely on hidden information, like alternative hypothetical universes. The only useful thing we can do is to model observable behaviour, and as the other replier stated, we have a functioning deterministic model of QM. so going by the evidence we currently have, the universe appears deterministic and the statistical bridge between QM and classical mechanics is essentially a hack to wire up two different models.

> Einstein famously agreed with your interpretation, but his invoking of god to make his case is quite appropriate.

He didn't literally invoke god - he used god, as we often do, as a metaphor for the laws of reality.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#49

Post by oska »

JohnBooty wrote: post #46
quxbar wrote: post #4

I tend to think of The Beatles as a fantastic world-spanning pachinko game. Once Ww2 ended and a mass boom of young people with disposable income crossed with new mass media markets and advances in recording distribution technology, it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. Heck, even the stadiums were a modern combination of improved bui…

it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. This is a profound misunderstanding of how weird and unlikely the Beatles phenomenon was. Post-WWII acts with catchy tunes and star power were already abundant before the Beatles. They were not special in that regard. What was unique about the cosmic accident that was the Beatles? 1. Happened to b…

This was a really good answer but I also don't think it invalidates the GP's point. There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do. Your answer explains some of how The Beatles became more than the average pop group but they still ("She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah") started off as just a (boy band) pop group.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#50

Post by Retric »

beaconstudios wrote: post #48
scratcheee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic that it feels like everything "should" be. >there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic In other words, we've managed to prove pretty much all of physics is built atop this one single phenomenon. Yo…

> It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic That's how empirical proof works though - you can't "prove" something conclusively based on evidence, you can only disprove it or continue to add examples of the model matching reality. That's falsifiability. > Currently the most widely co…

You can disprove theories based on hidden information. Locality or determinism pick one.
Post reply on HN