![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maybe it's just the fact that I am directly behind the bell of the fourth horn, but the Debussy sure gives me chills. The sopranos were taking bets on which movement would be the one in which Stephane's hair went foof... I would have won. By the fourth measure of the second movement, it was completely out of control.
The first movement is sooo... so. Clouds. I get so involved in it, sitting right behind the horns and the timpani. And the second, fetes, is so! Agh, I want to play it. Completely jazz-influential chords, and completely sublime rhythms, and the orchestration makes me sick it's so amazing. Though I got much sicker and in a much worse way when somebody's cell phone rang during the Ravel's second movement.
The Ravel! G major piano concerto. Mama and I snuck through the green room to the other side of the audience this time, so we could see the pianist, and guess what? He holds his hands JUST LIKE Reggie's, and does his fifths-up-the-keyboard hand over hand JUST LIKE Reggie does. Take that, Ian, and all you exclusive technique-prejudiced people. Mr. Shoulder-man French bigshot pianist does the same things. And very, very well. Second movement of the Ravel, like I said, was so intense and involved it was an actual physical uneasiness and discomfort (read: slight nausea) that I felt when somebody's phone rang in the middle of his high, high chromatic sweepings. And the third. Was so fun. I want to play it. Ee.
I don't know, what is wrong with you?
You can look at the age of the earth (compared to the universe) in the way that it would make the chance of intelligent life (or life in general) smaller, or you can look at it in the way that it would make it bigger. It's a chance for one crucial ancestor to die, true, (just like if one single one of my greatgreatgrandforebears had died I would not be here), but it is also a chance for more possibilities to be explored, more evolution to be accomplished. Maybe some other planet had the conditions for life, but not enough time for all the kinks in develioping it to work out? Either way, we are here, so obviously it is not impossible for life to develop, or even completely unlikely, because if the multiverse theory is true (which I'd prefer to believe, as much as it scares me... infinite possibilities mean infinite age for some of that other-universes-posing-as-dark-matter) then it has developed and not developed an infinte number of times. If you're planting an infinite field of corn (which you are, if there is an infinite number of possibilities), then, of course, unless all of them sprout, whatever number that does is close enough to nothing to make no difference except to the corn.
Wait, I just read it again, and now I see your point. Yes, in this universe, the chances are smaller since Earth is a third of the age of the universe. However, just because Earth is old does not mean it is a dominant figure. There are a hell of a lot of other planets just as old or older, despite the fact that there are some that are not as old. And there are probably ways for life to arise other than the way we did it... Crystalline life seems like a really plausible idea to me, and one that would have more chances to arise on more planets. They found one recently that is the same size as ours, close enough to actually measure its size. And that's within this galaxy, which is what? a quadrillionth of the volume of this universe? Admittedly, most of the volume of the universe is taken up by empty (or invisible darkmatterful) space, but still. That's a lot of space we haven't seen.
Of course, then one can make the argument that we never will, because it's too far away, so unless they have much, much much more advanced transportation (which does not seem possible, but hey, nothing's impossible), we'll never see them and it's irrelevant whether they exist or not. That's the thing about the observed universe. Unless we know about something, it may as well not be there. Or, according to some theories (http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm) it really isn't there.
The first movement is sooo... so. Clouds. I get so involved in it, sitting right behind the horns and the timpani. And the second, fetes, is so! Agh, I want to play it. Completely jazz-influential chords, and completely sublime rhythms, and the orchestration makes me sick it's so amazing. Though I got much sicker and in a much worse way when somebody's cell phone rang during the Ravel's second movement.
The Ravel! G major piano concerto. Mama and I snuck through the green room to the other side of the audience this time, so we could see the pianist, and guess what? He holds his hands JUST LIKE Reggie's, and does his fifths-up-the-keyboard hand over hand JUST LIKE Reggie does. Take that, Ian, and all you exclusive technique-prejudiced people. Mr. Shoulder-man French bigshot pianist does the same things. And very, very well. Second movement of the Ravel, like I said, was so intense and involved it was an actual physical uneasiness and discomfort (read: slight nausea) that I felt when somebody's phone rang in the middle of his high, high chromatic sweepings. And the third. Was so fun. I want to play it. Ee.
I don't know, what is wrong with you?
You can look at the age of the earth (compared to the universe) in the way that it would make the chance of intelligent life (or life in general) smaller, or you can look at it in the way that it would make it bigger. It's a chance for one crucial ancestor to die, true, (just like if one single one of my greatgreatgrandforebears had died I would not be here), but it is also a chance for more possibilities to be explored, more evolution to be accomplished. Maybe some other planet had the conditions for life, but not enough time for all the kinks in develioping it to work out? Either way, we are here, so obviously it is not impossible for life to develop, or even completely unlikely, because if the multiverse theory is true (which I'd prefer to believe, as much as it scares me... infinite possibilities mean infinite age for some of that other-universes-posing-as-dark-matter) then it has developed and not developed an infinte number of times. If you're planting an infinite field of corn (which you are, if there is an infinite number of possibilities), then, of course, unless all of them sprout, whatever number that does is close enough to nothing to make no difference except to the corn.
Wait, I just read it again, and now I see your point. Yes, in this universe, the chances are smaller since Earth is a third of the age of the universe. However, just because Earth is old does not mean it is a dominant figure. There are a hell of a lot of other planets just as old or older, despite the fact that there are some that are not as old. And there are probably ways for life to arise other than the way we did it... Crystalline life seems like a really plausible idea to me, and one that would have more chances to arise on more planets. They found one recently that is the same size as ours, close enough to actually measure its size. And that's within this galaxy, which is what? a quadrillionth of the volume of this universe? Admittedly, most of the volume of the universe is taken up by empty (or invisible darkmatterful) space, but still. That's a lot of space we haven't seen.
Of course, then one can make the argument that we never will, because it's too far away, so unless they have much, much much more advanced transportation (which does not seem possible, but hey, nothing's impossible), we'll never see them and it's irrelevant whether they exist or not. That's the thing about the observed universe. Unless we know about something, it may as well not be there. Or, according to some theories (http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm) it really isn't there.
