http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dauX8LKVizQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IT&hl=it&v=pyrTHQjpuiY&feature=related

7.00pm - AGATHA ET LES LECTURES ILLIMIT�ES

Marguerite Duras (1981) 85 mins

One of Duras� most fascinating treatments of the dialectical relationship between sound & image, what is spoken & what is left unsaid, is an evocative �adaptation� of her then unperformed play, Agatha. Featuring Bulle Ogier & Yann Andr�a as the wandering protagonists, & Duras & Andr�a�s disembodied voices on the soundtrack, it is equally a haunting meditation on the relation between humanity & its geographic surroundings. Shot in Duras� beloved Trouville, whose remarkable array of beachside villas the writer-director considered �the most beautiful tracking� shot in �the history of cinema�.

Why, Lord, you're wasting a lot of money on this universe ?

Hello, here's a little story and some inspiring thoughts quoted from an interview to John A. Wheeler .  The Big (economic) Crunch knocking at heaven's door...

(...) You can say there's an efficiency expert who's come to look over the Lord's shoulder. He says,

"Why, Lord, you're wasting a lot of money on this universe. See, you've put one hundred billion (10^11) stars in the Milky Way, and you've put one hundred billion (10^11) Milky Ways in the universe -- that's ten billion trillion (10^11) stars -- that's a mighty extravagant way to get one planet (the Earth) with life on it so there'll be somebody around to be aware of this universe. Now, Lord, we efficiency people want to cut you down, but we won't cut you down to one star. Instead of 10 billion trillion stars, we'll cut you down to one hundred billion stars -- that's enough to make one galaxy. This will be a great economy move."

"The universe starts with a Big Bang, expands to a maximum dimension, then recontracts and collapses (to the Big Crunch); no more awe-inspiring prediction was ever made." Quotation from Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John A. Wheeler in "Gravitation", W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973, page 1196.

The only problem is, according to general relativity, when you cut the amount of mass down by a factor of 100 billion, you also cut the size of the universe down by the same amount, just enough universe for one galaxy. You also cut down the time from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch from 100 billion years to just one year which isn't time enough to evolve even one star, let alone evolve life.

Put it another way. There's no obvious extravagance of scale in the construction of the universe. The efficiency expert would have a right to complain if life had been created on several planets, in several parts of the universe, because then he could say that's more than you really need in order for somebody to be around to be aware of the universe. But, if you have life on one planet only (the Earth), then, it's not obvious that you're being extravagant.

The anthropic principle provides a new perspective on the question of life elsewhere in space. It puts in question the common view that the universe is a big machine; that man is unimportant in the scheme of things; that we're an accidental bit of dust that doesn't have anything to do with it all. From that point of view, it is not very important whether you're going to have life on a billion planets or on just one planet -- or no life at all. Life or no life still wouldn't matter in the scheme of the universe.

But, if we adopt this other perspective that Dicke suggests -- the anthropic principle -- then it's quite a different assessment that we make. Then the universe has to be such as to permit awareness of that universe; otherwise the universe has no meaning.

We are now nearer the Big Bang than the Big Crunch since the universe, as we observe it, is still expanding.

The anthropic principle looks at this universe, that universe and the other universe and rules out as mere meaningless machines all those in which awareness does not develop somewhere at some time. Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum:

No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

neither religious nor scientific

In the profile section "believes", among "religious" and "scientific" what would represent "other"?:

facebook news feed/Rimas Sapauskas Neblogai įsivažiuoja: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN8HwUxFouM

WWW - Who, When, Where...

If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse are:

Meris Angioletti, Yane Calovski, Jacob Dahl Jurgensen, Mark Geffriaud, Raimundas Malasauskas,

Darius Miksys, Jacopo Miliani, Daniela Paes Leao and Samon Takahashi.

Together with Daniele Balit, Cecilia Canziani and Adrienne Drake from 1:1projects, Rome.

The project will be developed through the following meetings/workshops/public events:

Rome: 25 – 27 September. Hosted by 1:1projects

Skopje: 30 October – 1 November. Hosted by Yane Calovski /  press to exit project space

Paris: 27 – 29 November. Hosted by Raimundas Malasauskas

If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.

Our world could be nothing but a small grain of sand, part of an infinite number of other possible worlds that reside in parallel universes. More and more this hypothesis is investigated by physicists and cosmologists, some of whom believe that we are facing a new Copernican revolution which will radically shift our perspective. No longer does just one universe exist, but a ‘multiverse’ of varying universes, each with differing properties and their own space-time dimensions.

Physicists Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog note that if this is true, a linear vision of the history of the universe would thus be wrong. The universe doesn’t have a single history, say Hertog and Hawking, but every possible history, each with its own probability. The history of the universe cannot be interpreted as linear – with a starting point that continues until it reaches us today – but rather the result of ‘patterns of interference’ of all the possible histories of the universe. The present state of our cosmos arises, then, from the sum of all these possibilities.

Such discourse entails radical shifts in perspective and repositioning that clearly go beyond the scientific scope. When Hawking speaks of the universe originating from a quantum event, we are introduced to models of thinking where micro and macro visions enter into contact with each other. In addition, Hawking’s “Imaginary Time” concept opens up new approaches to looking at time dimension as if it were a dimension of space.

Above all, these researchers are questioning a system made up of abstract laws on which physics has been based until now. With a ‘multiverse’, the element of subjectivity overwhelmingly enters into play as a determining factor of reality. Hawking confronts us with a very suggestive hypothesis: the different histories of the universe are material which we ourselves elaborate, through the filter of observation, to be finally recomposed into a linear, personal history of the cosmos.

Through the exploration of the concepts of time, space and the role of subjectivity, If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse addresses art as a place where these ideas can be translated into form and become the location for interplay between artists, curators, academics and the public. The workshops will develop as a regular series of meetings in which the participants will contribute to discussions on the issues of time, space and its perception. Individual research and collective exchange will then be developed into an exhibition which will provide a public arena for our on-going discussions and ideas.




--