Have you ever tried doing simulations with emergent behaviour? It is not in an insult, but your way of thinking implies that you did not. I did some simulation of particles and of agent evolution and i can say, that you do not need any complexity for a complex behavior, including intelligence and life. Universe does not "just happen". Stars do not "just happen to form and to do nuclear fusion". It is just the most stable/probable way for a huge matter clouds to be. When there is a huge hydrogen cloud, hydrogen does not just "happen to condense". Condensing is the most stable (most probable) way to be because gravity exists. If you hold a pen in the air, and then release it - it would fall. You would not expect it to just stay in place. It did not "just happen to fall". It fell because there was no other way for it to be - it did not have any supports to hold it in place. Same with hydrogen clouds. Hydrogen cloud falls into itself and condenses because there is nothing for it to hold the shape. Condensation releases a lot of heat (energy), and in high energy environment fusion and glowing happens. Even if hydrogen cloud "tries" to do something else - eventually it will end up in the most stable state - condensation into a star. And it is stable because once a star forms, gas that it is made of cannot just fly away, and star cannot just happen to vanish. It is destined to do a star life cycle. I do not mean that everything is deterministic. What I mean is to consider attractors (in state phase-space) and probabilities bias. If you bet your money on a coin throw - you DO "just happen" to win or lose, because there are roughly equivalent probabilities for both variants. But in big and complex systems probabilities are not the same, there is a strong bias. Moreover, there are "attractor-states" (idk how those actually called), where the system tends to move into from other states. We DO just happen to have exactly four limbs, for example, because in evolution history, i think there is not a strong probability bias for exactly four of those. There were roughly even chances for other amounts of limbs. But we DO NOT "just happen" to exist. Complex replicators with intelligence will appear. Later or earlier, but they will emerge, because intelligence gives serious advantage and probabilistic bias. We ARE DESTINED TO EXIST in a large enough universe.
Hi. The question ist, can scientists on earth detect a life signature among light from a distant solar system that is being overshone by the central sun? If they admit that this is nearly impossible, then they would no longer receive public funds. So maybe the answer is really simple, who knows.
Very interesting. All I have heard is that at the edges of the transit light we may be able to detect the spectra that passes through the atmosphere of the exoplanet. But I have not done any fact finding / research into the details and technical feasibility of it.
@@ginoco That is the theory. But nobody knows to what extent life affects the spectra and how sensitive the measuring instruments must be. We simply cannot put our instruments 100 lightyears away to learn what the earth looks like from there. Maybe one day, when the measuring has improved, we discover space is full of life.
OH YEAH!! I love doing live record and just improvise, so being able to perform, externally playing trig locks like there individual changes. Have one with a Hi LFO & a Low LFO, and just thinking of how to set this up using my keyboard across the OT. Definitely becomes an 8 voice poly sample keyboard when you get what you want programmed to each key. 🔑 You’ve definitely put a much needed spotlight an 👁️ opening feature! Thanks for sharing!
That the natural laws of the universe and its processes constitute some sort of techno-signature invokes a stolen concept fallacy. A techno-signature is _defined_ by its non-naturalness; you don't find techno-signatures in nature but for the deliberate creation by an intelligent being. However, that means that the concept of a techno-signature is genetically dependent on the concept of natural patterns for its definition. By stating that the natural laws constitute a techno-signature invokes a stolen concept because a techno-signature is defined by contrasting it against what natural laws are capable of - you have now destroyed the distinction between natural pattern and techno-signature, and the concept of a techno-signature dissolves into incoherency. A persistent bugbear that I often find is the false dichotomy between design and randomness. That is, it is a common thought pattern that if something isn't random, then it must be a deliberate, intensional design. Not so, as anyone who has ever derived a law from basic principles knows. Some patterns in nature are inevidable consequences of deeper laws and principles. The ideal gas law is a consequence of how an ideal gas behaves on the atomic scale - going through the steps, you end up with gas behavior. There's no choice in what you will end up with: a multitude of infinitesimal perfectly elastic particles in a box with randomized intial velocities will behave according to the ideal gas law. There's a pattern here, but there's no design here, for design implies choice, and there is no choice for this system to behave any other way. Finally, I want make you aware of your own selection bias. We currently live in a universe that works in this particular way. You see it work in this peculiar, interconnected way and you don't think it's a coincidence, but would an alternate you in a different universe where the laws work in a different way would say any different? The universe has the laws it has, so they have to work together in a particular way. This is what makes thinking about these large subjects intellectually hazardous. There are many, many traps to fall into without realizing that they're traps. Our brains are adapted to living on earth; when you go much beyond living on earth and its problems with making your way in human society, we often find ourselves ill-equipped and our usual intuitions deceptive and misleading. It's okay to be amazed and in awe of the larger universe, but we have to keep in mind the limitations of our usual ways of thinking and consider that the universe need not be beholden to them.
Thanks for the detailed comment! It's definitely a challenge to eliminate bias, and try to be as objective as possible. We all have opinions, and beliefs. I didn't go into this in the video, but you can probably guess that I'm not a fan of infinite universe theories which involve the anthropic principle. The main reason is that it's leads to exotic conditions like a universe where I exist with my name spelled backwards etc. And questioning the plausibility of that leads to the cyclic argument that implausible does not exclude it as the nature of reality (a bit like "truth is stranger than fiction"). For me, it just kind of ends there as a theory which explains everything by explaining everything away. Please note I'm quite literally "some guy on the internet" trying to reason what I think the universe is :) I'm happy to adjust my views as I learn more.
@@ginoco Just food for thought: What probability would you assign to you yourself being alive, standing where you are standing and being exactly the way you are right now? Are you telling me the big bang just so happened to be exactly the right way and the resulting hydrogen gas just happened to have the right velocity to form the milky way and there just happend to be a star that had just the right ratio of H to He to Li to C to O and that star just so happened to explode the right way to give rise to a daughter star (the sun) and it so happend ... etc. You're looking at the result (you existing exactly as you are) and are assigning likelihoods retroactively, which will give non-sensical answers or in your case, incredulity about how the result came about. It's a subtle trap a lot of people fall into when thinking about this stuff. If we look at it like that, the probability that you exist is so close to zero, you would have no choice but to conclude it's utterly impossible. Yet, here you are! In fact, the same is true for anything, anywhere, anytime: looking back, it seems everything had to be just exactly right to make possible that something ends up in that particular state , but you cannot conclude from that, that there must have been a plan or intention behind it, why would you? For example, if you're walking down the street and a bird takes a dump on your head, the chain of events that has to occur to make it happen is staggering. Just one fewer or one more step or slightly more or less wind would have saved you, but nope, it happened, right then, right there. And again, if we only look at the causal chain that lead to you being soiled on and disregard all other potential outcomes along that chain, which could have happend instead, we have to conclude it was intentional, but you don't see a lot of people actually thinking that there is a big bird conspiracy - it's just coincidence.
@@quitchiboo Thanks for the brain food, and the bird poop? LOL :) What I call "intentionality" is that it's hard to explain away the sequenced formation of baryonic matter as mere chance. I don't know the "meaning" of that sequence, and didn't state one in the video. By contrast, I find it strange to NOT acknowledge that sequence as something predictable and orderly, which leads to my fascination of why. We may never know, but that doesn't stop us from pondering :)
Hello, astronomer and physicist here: Yeah its incredible how this stuff works. Below the surface of elements is the electrons and smaller things that merge together to create them. Then as they mass into stars, as H and He merges together and then continue smushing together into bigger and bigger things to eventually form iron (or maybe heavier, depending on the mass) is so awesome to think about. There was a telescope study done that saw hot gas lines connecting galaxies together, that were remnants of their travel. And we're seeing planets and stars being formed, with the JWST we've seen deeper back than ever before. All because things are mixing together, and won't ever stop now that its begun. And life, both the evolution of it and how it even works to reproduce and spread and create even more beautiful things to complement the natural universe's beauty, is even more complex than a star
Thanks! Definitely a marvel :) I purposefully started with baryonic matter, and stayed at the atomic scale. In hindsight I should have done a better intro to explain my thinking behind that limit. My thought was that there are tangible patterns in tangible matter, before breaking it down further. If people find these concept videos interesting, I do want to go further, but I'm sure you know (far better than me) that it's a heck of a drop off to non-baryonic topics and QFT :)
Hi! Pretty nice video, and i want to make some additions to your theory. The Universe when it formed had a lot of energy (the "hot" universe). All that extra energy did help Hydrogen and matter coalesce.
Not directly, but if you use a DAW like Bitwig you can (I did a video on how to do this with the Syntakt: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xJ8zKdFCNoc.html). There is also a retrokits cable that does this, but I have not used it. I do highly recommend using a midi keyboard with an Elektron box in general for doing melodic lines. It also gives you velocity on recorded notes.
They are the same knobs as the Digitakt 1, so they have a rubber coating. Personally I like the feel of them and have had no durability issues (even after 5 years of use)
@@ginoco thanks, they do feel nice, but mine have turned gummy. not as bad as some other items i have, but it is frustrating they clearly know the issue and keep using this stuff
Yeah, I believe you, and others have said the same thing. I wonder if they know the cause (different oils in people’s hands, different climates, spilled beer :) etc.).
That's a good call. Because you can import Digitakt 1 projects into the Digitakt 2, I can say in those cases they sound the same. But when you start using things like the new filters and stereo samples, there are new tonalities in there for sure. IMO the chorus adds a lot, esp to synth stuff done with single cycle waves. I'll explore some comparisons, and if that turns out well, I'll post something. Hope this helps, Gino
@@________________________3 You use the Transfer app to export and import projects and it’s available on Elektrons support page. So you need a PC or Mac to do that. It’s pretty easy and also the best way to back up things.
An easy like from me Gino. I'm sat here wondering if the Iridium can do it's own digital take on an evolving Solina type string patch. This is all rocket science, but you really do show it well and perfectly paced and cleared to follow. You should be selling patches and doing paid vids on the Iridium. You know your stuff.
Late to the party Gino! Just ordered an Iridium keyboard literally in the last 2 hours. My first synth! I have a lot to learn. What an awesome tutorial/demo. The synth is so under represented on YT it's untrue. An easy like. You'd probably sold it already lol
Hey i got an issue my digitakt doesn’t appear in flstudio, I’ve downloaded over bridge digitakt, it appears as a speaker but no as a multitrack hardware
Yes, that is what Overbridge does. It allows the Digitakt to show up as a VST in your DAW, which you can get high quality audio from and it has synch settings.
Thank you Gino for sharing! Iridium/Quantum is not just a synthesizer, it's a sonic universe. There is sooo much to discover! I like your pad a lot, it doesn't fill the complete spectrum so this kind of sound leaves room for other instruments.
Thanks for this lesson, I appreciate it. I wanted an Iridium for AGES, then I finally got one and I feel super regretful about it because every sound I make with it sounds super ugly. I think it's more so that the presets on it are really ugly. For reference, a lot of other synths I've bought have some beautiful presets that give me a starting point for ideas and such. I think the Iridium is just a lot more versatile and the presets in it are trying less to impress with lush sounds and more to impress with diverse sounds. Anyhow, thank you again.
I think its a potent synth but you really need to be knowing your theories for you to maximize the results from an Iridium. Waldorf is a company which manifests every stereotype of german business that you can find. They are efficient, optimal, serious. And not fun. When you combine not fun with something that requires effort to learn. You get Waldorf Iridium. I have an iridium, and its over my paygrade. I have the fortune to have the money to take a long long time to learn it.
Thank for this and your other iridium vids. I've had the keyboard for about a month but have been considering selling it because it seems so overwhelming. Stuff like this helps immensely in allowing get a a handle on it so I can better evaluate it.
Useful video, thanks! I'll have to try sampling to a fixed number of bars. Small item of feedback though: the DT audio was fairly quiet compared to your voice (which was at a good level).
That was exactly what I was looking for which was missing from all the other videos relating to the new update. You've persuaded me to purchase the digitakt.
Nice! I hope you love it! If it’s your first Elektron, take your time learning it as they are quite deep, and muscle memory takes a while to develop for all the many key combinations. But it’s so worth it IMO :)
