joeberon

I don't think my music is bad enough that it will make people braindead

> Having said that, as someone who tinkered a bit with production some twenty many years ago before lapsing, and tinkering and lapsing once again a couple of years ago, I would argue that some form of shared community outlet is essential in persisting and making something of greater merit.

Still most of your time with music will be solitary. If you accept that, anything social is just a bonus.

> Music that is not performed and shared, ever, is somehow stillborn. Fun and enjoyment come from the attribution of meaning, and to me, meaning ultimately comes from real human context. I feel that the lack of this killed my desire to keep making it and improving. It was just an expensive way of shouting into the void.

Well you basically just proved my whole point here. You stopped making music because you weren't happy doing it alone. Learn to be totally content doing it alone, and you won't have this issue. It is possible, because I was stuck in your situation for a long time, and thought myself that music was pointless if not socially shared. I realise now that it just isn't true, and in fact that mindset puts huge pressure on yourself and indeed on the community around you. It is possible to enjoy making music without the need for social reinforcement.

Haskell is very widely used though, that is not a reasonable comparison.

Forth is not under the radar in any sense. It is much more popular and well known than any underground band.

Yeah I definitely agree with this. Many people can and do perceive the inexplainable issue directly. I had a discussion about that recently here on HN, about those who can perceive a "hard problem of consciousness" and those who cannot. Basically some people do not perceive any disparity between a totally physical model of the mind and our conscious subjective experience, while I and others personally do. It is a bit tiring to constantly be called delusional because I feel that disparity

I tried it, and it felt more like a fantasy computer game, like TIS-100 or something, rather than a real language. It felt neither easy to write nor read, and I'm not sure what problem it solves with "software" in general that other languages don't. Ruby is a great language for sure, and actually it has some of the DSL capabilities of Forth

Forth fans live in what seems to be a world of delusion. They rail against modern software, claiming to have an enlightened "system", and yet cannot communicate anything about the real capabilities of their system. If you ask most Forth users "what do you do in Forth?" the answer is almost always "writing a Forth". There seem to be very few people who are interested in using it for any other problem domain. I can't shake the feeling it is mainly hype.

That's a pretty common beginner's trap, to have your motivation be to release music rather than in creating music itself. For basically any beginner you need many years to get to the point where that should be a consideration. Your main motivation should be fun and enjoyment of making the music. Ironically this is what actually differentiates the greats from those that struggle: the former make music primarily for themselves, the latter make music primarily for others.

not only “not easy”, I highly doubt it is even theoretically possible in this universe. Probably it can be proved that a computer that simulates the universe must have at least as many qubits as atoms in the universe to be able to describe the state of the universe or something. Obviously not possible since qubits are physical entities

How do you know it is nonsense? I don’t understand how you’ve categorically decided this. I’m a Buddhist so I don’t believe in a soul but I do believe in non physical aspects of the mind and also rebirth. It is actually possible to verify these things by Buddhist practise. You have decided it definitely isn’t true, but you haven’t got any proof either way. How is it then obviously “clearly nonsense”? That is just your preconception. If you are a scientist you should at least be agnostic, since we do not have evidence either way.

> Because I think we both agree they're solidly physical in the sense that a "thought" can be reduced to chemical signaling.

I don’t agree with that. I think there is an inseparable spiritual element that justifies the subjective experience.

For the QM part, that still does not mean that ontologically the probabilities have a physical reality. Google “interpretations of quantum mechanics”, we have very little idea of what quantum mechanics actually means yet. We can set up the problems and do the maths but no one even knows what exactly it means to do a measurement (again Google “measurement problem”). I am an expert in quantum mechanics (it is my job) so I would be happy to answer questions about it in the morning.

Is "mathematics" a thing in our physical universe? Many people argue it's an abstract set of constructions with no physical reality in themselves. Sounds kind of outlandish and bizarre according to your criteria.

> Everything is physical and obeys the laws of physics which themselves are governed by the laws of mathematics.

If you define "physical" to mean "literally everything" then of course having something outside of Physics is logically impossible. That is a different definition to the work "physical" that we are working with in terms of the mind. In that case "physical" doesn't mean "literally everything" but rather more like "those things that correspond to an external, verifiable, objective reality". For you, ideas and concepts would be considered physical, but that is not the case for the definition of "physical" I mentioned, which is far more common in both religion and philosophy.

In this case we would say that ideas and concepts are not physical. So an easy answer to your question "Can you give me an example of anything that doesn't exist within this physical universe? I'm not familiar with the concept of a "thing" that isn't physical." would be literally any concept or idea. However since you have a universalist (and thus totally useless) definition of "physical", of course it is impossible for me to argue that there is anything outside of that.

PS. As a doctor in quantum physics myself, I can tell you that statistics and probability is certainly a way of modelling outcomes, and not in any way considered a fundamental element of reality.

Right but the idea that there are aspects of our minds that don't exist within this physical universe is not outlandish or bizarre, it's a very reasonable and historically defended position.

EDIT: Also not sure what this bizarre statement is:

> Mathematically, things with no evidence for their existence don't exist.

1. How is that related to mathematics? Can you provide a theorem or some definitions here?

2. How is evidence related to mathematics?

3. Why is mathematics relevant when talking about whether or not our mind has non-physical aspects?

> But we do have computation readily available, my 3060 is just sitting there while I sleep

You have vastly overestimated the power of your 3060 if you think it can simulate all the Earth's atoms at the beginning of life here.

We can't even simulate the dynamics of a simple atomic system in an exact way, without making assumptions. The universe is that but with many many more atoms and complicated couplings. The universe is much more powerful of a simulation than any computer can ever be. Even if you used a quantum computer you'd need as many qubits as that original primordial soup.

Our computers are not more powerful than the "computer of the Universe", they are much _much_ less powerful.

It's impossible to really rule out such a thing but at the same time I don't think there's any way we can understand how to actually simulate or even identify that.

How do you know it is pure nonsense? We actually have no scientific evidence either way. There is a reason why discussing the "hard problem of consciousness" is so popular. There are many people now advocating for a universal consciousness, i.e. that all space time has intrinsically a mind-like element that is merely "tapped into" by physical bodies.

It's foolish to pretend that it's a solved problem when it's not. At the present moment we don't actually have a solid idea either way.

It's the difference between eating an okay meal and literally stabbing yourself in the face with a knife

I feel like this implies that creativity is the creation of the interpretation of a work rather than literally its creation and I don't really agree with that conclusion.

During an engineering degree in the UK you will not be required (or even usually have the possibility) of doing a non-engineering module

Indeed, and even educated people might not grasp it. I'm a doctor in quantum physics and honestly I find electronics almost always impossible to understand.

Engineers are not taught humanities here in the UK, and I'm sure that's also true in many other countries

My point exactly. It's still a relatively utopian situation compared to most places in the US

Yes it is

I find it quite distasteful and lacking perspective when hearing Dutch people say "cycling really isn't that great!" (although I know that's not really the point of this article). But still, don't ignore the horrific reality of really a lot of the world at this point: suburban america is just one isolated example. I know there's always some level of "the grass is always greener" but the Dutch emphasis on making cycling out to be not so really a big deal actually is a bit ridiculous frankly.

Unfortunately I found the SDV style grating and lifeless

No, not really, two romantic paintings can (and do) have totally different styles.

> Maybe you're focusing on the style too much, and not enough on other artistic elements.

Well if we look at another "artistic element" of the game, we see that it relies on the absolutely shit combat from SDV, which doesn't exactly inspire hope from the gameplay.

The point is that it's really fucking boring to get the same art style again. Why am I going to play a game that bores me just by looking at it? I want to have fun. That's what games are for.

People always say this about such trailers, that the game has a chance to change and probably will look totally different when it comes out, but I very rarely have found that actually to be true in the end.

I think it's one of those situations where it's like, yeah I appreciate that it's just one dude, but for me as the player, that doesn't actually affect my enjoyment of the game, so there's only so much I can ignore that stuff. The problem is that I already felt "done" and moved on from SDV (actually I was never that into the game, which is also a factor to being disappointed here) and this just feels like, we're gonna get another few years of the same thing..

I personally find it's very disappointing that the game is almost entirely visually indistinct from Stardew Valley. In fact even the sound effects are identical. I understand that this saves a lot of time and money, but this feels more like bonus content or an impressive mod of SDV than really having its own new identity. I'm sure a vast majority of people are in the "don't care, this is exactly what I want" category, and I wish that were me too, but unfortunately it's just not happening for me.