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

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#71

Post by subpixel »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #57
subpixel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 America…

Agree, but let's not forget that American kids were beginning to also get served some R&B tailings served up to them by the likes of Elvis and Buddy Holly, etc.

My point is really that what Americans mostly heard on the radio - Elvis and Buddy Holly etc. - were _products_ of the R&B canon. Owing to the particulars of how R&B was appreciated in the UK, which was quite unique to the UK, the Beatles had deeper access to the source material.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#72

Post by carlivar »

jwally wrote: post #64

In case anyone was unaware (like I was until a month ago)..."Beatles" is a pun that I never picked up on (beat - like the musical unit of time => 'beat'les). I guess I don't run into enough beetle related situations in my life that anyone or anything corrected me.

It's also a tribute to their favorite band: Buddy Holly and the Crickets.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#73

Post by beaconstudios »

simiones wrote: post #60
beaconstudios wrote: post #48

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'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…

To be fair, going by pure empiricism, it makes more sense to say that the world is non-deterministic. QM only matches observations iff we assume that the measurement process is truly non-deterministic. The Schrodinger equation can only be used, in practice, to measure probabilities, we don't know of any way to use to predict exact results. However, philosophically speaking, this is unsatisfactory, since the behavior…

I suppose it depends on whether we're simply stuck at too high a resolution of measurability due to Heisenberg uncertainty - either subatomic behaviour has a legitimate statistical factor, or we simply can't look low enough to see the deterministic factors (yet?)

This is straying into territory I can only hypothesise in though - for all I know the latter option may have already been ruled out. Does this dilemma map onto hidden variables vs Copenhagen interpretation?

My primary point of reference for these things is philosophical as I have an only-slightly-above-pop level of understanding of QM and am leaning more on second order cybernetics and epistemology to reason about observer-system interaction.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#74

Post by yazantapuz »

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…

> young people with disposable income

I think that was no the case of The Beatles, but of the Rolling Stones.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#75

Post by olivermarks »

WalterBright wrote: post #6
jareklupinski wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it could've been The Monkees

Except The Monkees couldn't play. They had to learn to play & sing. Their songs were written by others.

It's not that the Monkees 'couldn't play' - that show biz act was selected for visual appeal while management had the Wrecking Crew studio a list create the pop songs. It was brilliantly successful business.

The Beatles were arguably an earlier incarnation of this - a v rough and ready covers band propelled to 'stardom' by Epstein and heavily produced, notably by George Martin. Just like Jimmy Miller's shaping of the Rolling Stones in their glory years it's the people behind the curtain who transition these acts into the big league.

(The Jones Stones were a very good UK R&B covers band in their early years just as the Beatles were originally a rock and roll covers band)

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#76

Post by Retric »

simiones wrote: post #53
Retric wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm assuming you're referring to Bell's inequality, but that has little to do with determinism. Bell's inequality says "locality or hidden variables , pick one". In fact, "superdeterminism" can actually render Bell's inequality moot. That is, you can have locality + hidden variables + superdeterminism. You can't have locality + hidden variables + [statistical independence between the measurement settings and the stat…

Superdeterminism also gets rid of the need for photons etc. If you’re instruments are running a predetermined script they can just as easily be playing back a movie as having an actual detector.

Really though it’s just another flavor of non-localism that gets around FTL.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#77

Post by tsimionescu »

Retric wrote: post #76
simiones wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming you're referring to Bell's inequality, but that has little to do with determinism. Bell's inequality says "locality or hidden variables , pick one". In fact, "superdeterminism" can actually render Bell's inequality moot. That is, you can have locality + hidden variables + superdeterminism. You can't have locality + hidden variables + [statistical independence between the measurement settings and the stat…

Superdeterminism also gets rid of the need for photons etc. If you’re instruments are running a predetermined script they can just as easily be playing back a movie as having an actual detector. Really though it’s just another flavor of non-localism that gets around FTL.

Not necessarily, superdeterminism is a concept, not a specific theory/model. You have specific models that can basically explain anything at all as a "grand conspiracy", but you can also have models that don't.

There are no useful, testable "superdeterministic" models yet, to be fair. But they can, in principle, exist. Again, all that this requires is a model where the measurement settings depend on the hidden variables themselves.

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#78

Post by [deleted] »

jwally wrote: post #64

In case anyone was unaware (like I was until a month ago)..."Beatles" is a pun that I never picked up on (beat - like the musical unit of time => 'beat'les). I guess I don't run into enough beetle related situations in my life that anyone or anything corrected me.

[deleted]

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#79

Post by m3047 »

jwally wrote: post #64

In case anyone was unaware (like I was until a month ago)..."Beatles" is a pun that I never picked up on (beat - like the musical unit of time => 'beat'les). I guess I don't run into enough beetle related situations in my life that anyone or anything corrected me.

Yes, it is that. Watch out when the Beetles come to town. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047677/

Re: The Beatle Who Got Away

#80

Post by Retric »

tsimionescu wrote: post #77
Retric wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superdeterminism also gets rid of the need for photons etc. If you’re instruments are running a predetermined script they can just as easily be playing back a movie as having an actual detector. Really though it’s just another flavor of non-localism that gets around FTL.

Not necessarily, superdeterminism is a concept, not a specific theory/model. You have specific models that can basically explain anything at all as a "grand conspiracy", but you can also have models that don't. There are no useful, testable "superdeterministic" models yet, to be fair. But they can, in principle, exist. Again, all that this requires is a model where the measurement settings depend on the hidden variab…

That’s the problem, we aren’t talking about a specific theory so you need to toss in all the suddenly possible models under stuff super determinism allows.

Excluding the ultimate “grand conspiracy” stuff that only applies to scientific instruments it posits that basically every interaction between any particle is following a predetermined script. You can of course still have photons etc, but like two actors in a play such particles don’t need to be having a conversation.

The idea also extends into all sorts of strange and untestable territories such as our universe being a copy of a prior one that operated on different principles.

Of course none of that means such an idea is false, just that it’s currently as unproductive as saying god did it.

Post reply on HN