Monday, September 22, 2014

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Postby nameta9 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:56 pm
Quantum Observation occurs when the principles of Identity and Non Contradiction are imposed upon reality and forces the observation to have an identity and be non contradictory - otherwise the real world and the quantum world are contradictory and have no principles of identity. In other words, anything goes in reality, we superimpose a reference system upon our observations and activities to box them in and hence superimpose upon them the principles of identity and non contradiction.

So A is A and also A is not A in the quantum world. A is B and also A is not B in the quantum world and all else: all contradictions are acceptable and valid.

This means that electrons and atoms small distances and things essentially far away from us don't behave at all, do whatever they like can be anything they want, are not constrained by anything at all any logic or mathematics or anything, hence this explains why quantum world is so hard for scientists to understand.


QED.




PS: ALL CONTRADICTIONS ARE OPERATING....



yours truely, the turd
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Postby obe » Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:11 pm
nameta9 wrote:Quantum Observation occurs when the principles of Identity and Non Contradiction are imposed upon reality and forces the observation to have an identity and be non contradictory - otherwise the real world and the quantum world are contradictory and have no principles of identity. In other words, anything goes in reality, we superimpose a reference system upon our observations and activities to box them in and hence superimpose upon them the principles of identity and non contradiction.

So A is A and also A is not A in the quantum world. A is B and also A is not B in the quantum world and all else: all contradictions are acceptable and valid.

This means that electrons and atoms small distances and things essentially far away from us don't behave at all, do whatever they like can be anything they want, are not constrained by anything at all any logic or mathematics or anything, hence this explains why quantum world is so hard for scientists to understand.


QED.




PS: ALL CONTRADICTIONS ARE OPERATING....



yours truely, the turd




Turd, how about in the case of the two slit experiment, where electrons seem to act as a particle, then again as a wave? Has this been successfully resolved?
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
obe
Shameless Chess Player
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Postby nameta9 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:32 pm
Perfect example: yes.

We force them to act in a way that is comprehensible to us, we force them to be in a way we can understand and perceive, we create the reference system and the results of the observation by imposing the principles of identity and non contradiction, this is what the quantum collapse into a single state really means.

What really happens is beyond us because it is outside of our logical reference system of identity and non contradiction...

What we do is invent what happens and make it happen by decoding it in the only way we can, making it mean something to us.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Postby zinnat13 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:55 pm
nameta9 wrote:Perfect example: yes.

We force them to act in a way that is comprehensible to us, we force them to be in a way we can understand and perceive, we create the reference system and the results of the observation by imposing the principles of identity and non contradiction, this is what the quantum collapse into a single state really means.

What really happens is beyond us because it is outside of our logical reference system of identity and non contradiction...

What we do is invent what happens and make it happen by decoding it in the only way we can, making it mean something to us.


Yes. You got it absolutely right.

Quantum physics is nothing but an excuse of incompetence.

And, anyone, who is not intellectually blind, can realize easily how it sidesteps all science and logic.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat13
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Postby James S Saint » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:09 pm
RM:AO resolves the Double-Slit experiment.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Return to Science, Technology, and Math

Sunday, September 21, 2014

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Postby nameta9 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:56 pm
Quantum Observation occurs when the principles of Identity and Non Contradiction are imposed upon reality and forces the observation to have an identity and be non contradictory - otherwise the real world and the quantum world are contradictory and have no principles of identity. In other words, anything goes in reality, we superimpose a reference system upon our observations and activities to box them in and hence superimpose upon them the principles of identity and non contradiction.

So A is A and also A is not A in the quantum world. A is B and also A is not B in the quantum world and all else: all contradictions are acceptable and valid.

This means that electrons and atoms small distances and things essentially far away from us don't behave at all, do whatever they like can be anything they want, are not constrained by anything at all any logic or mathematics or anything, hence this explains why quantum world is so hard for scientists to understand.


QED.




PS: ALL CONTRADICTIONS ARE OPERATING....



yours truely, the turd
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am


 

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Reference System (Einstein is a fool ...) ?




Reference System (Einstein is a fool ...) ?

Postby nameta9 » Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:57 pm
Reference System (Einstein is a fool ...) ?

1) In what reference system is Einstein's Time and Space in ?

It is assumed that they are contained inside something else so that they can curve and you can apply equations to it and all, but then again that just brings you back to a bigger all containing space - time and such. Circular reasoning or is the physicist simply fooling himself that he has a bigger view of it all from the outside, inventing a more all encompassing reference system ?

2) Is it not maybe simply his logic, language, mind and the principles of identity and non contradiction the ultimate reference system ?

3) Is this the ultimate difference between the probability theories of quantum mechanics that so troubled Einstein and his all encompassing and elegant but "probably" "wrong" (as wrong and right don't even matter) general relativity ?

Ultimately the difference between Quantum and Relativity is the difference between the activity of "Science as an activity with the construction of an all encompassing general theory of all" and "Nothing at All", the void, no explanation of anything as the very concept of explanation is void of any meaning and use.

Probability has no cause, is random, is outside of any patterns, can't be explained any further is the end of all logic and reasoning and hope of really controlling existence, reality completely. Probability is the End of Science.

Probability is also the end of an outside world, a world of consensus, a world of common laws amongst common observers, there is no Time and Space, only random events, only point like events reciprocally defined and perceived but nothing any further, no further explanations, no further cause and effects, the end of science and logic.

The Outside world with its time and space and illusion of being eternal or of extending in time and space between observers is simply an illusion, is false, is non existent.

And this is what troubled Einstein as he can feel that probability, random chaos killed all his theories and all possible theories and science once and for all.


God plays dice, since he "probably" doesn't even exist...point like events reciprocally defined and perceived only for a moment to disappear forever and never have "existed", and not even point like since points themselves don't really exist, no structure, nothing at all, not even the principles of identity and non contradiction...nothing any further, no further explanations...science at its heart is actually still the very concept of god and is mostly a religion itself...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am




Re: Reference System (Einstein is a fool ...) ?

Postby nameta9 » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:28 pm
And this also justifies the idea of inventing your own universe: don't discover how the mind works, invent how it works, invent and live in your own world, don't be a slave of consensus, they are simply other self similar observers that need to find the rules of engagements between each other to navigate the laws of physics. But you can be your own universe, invent it all, consensus is not important it is an illusion.

Einstein himself said imagination is more important than knowledge, and in fact use your imagination and invent and live in your own universe, it is just as real and fake as any other. (Maybe he knew this but never said this...) Real philosophers and genius use only pure imagination and nothing else...no need to respect any constraints as contraints limit you and make you a slave...

Hence modified minds, simulations of new worlds and all the other things I always talked about, but especially, the true genius is completely unknown, uncontrollable and doesn't communicate it to anything or anyone as real genius is not a social engagement, is not in need of consensus of others or doesn't need to measure itself against anything, not even the laws of physics (if only for survivial, but survival is trivial), real genius can only measure itself.

Real philosophy and real genius has nothing to do with anything social or communication, can never communicate the levels and concepts and ideas reached, no one can ever hope to understand or reach it, it has truly nothing to say as nothing outside of itself can ever judge or measure up, or it really doesn't matter what the world outside of the real genius is, since the real genius and philosopher is his entire world and universe...nay he invents the most incredible worlds constantly...

Beware, the real philosopher and genius doesn't waste his time on trivial ordeals as mathematics, science, logic or anything else communicable socially, or finding mathematical solutions or logic solutions to problems or social solutions or anything at all social, they don't waste their time on anything that can be measured or seen or perceived socially, hence they will never solve any problems or be intelligent in the classical sense everyone thinks it means,...the real genius and philosopher will always be totally invisible ...

Real genius is his own universe, is his own boss, the need of consensus makes you a slave...

So the name of this thread is true..

The real philosopher and genius is usually a total social failure, can never succeed socially as social success is so trivial compared to the worlds he can construct, imagine and inhabit as in Free Physics...

Friday, February 21, 2014

Music has finished Discovering





Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:46 pm
Honestly ? ... Most First Principles in Music have been discovered and applied and in fact I arrived at this discussion in music after analyzing the last 400 or 500 years of Scientific and Technological Inventions and Discoveries and concluding that maybe 70 % of what could be invented and discovered has been done essentially (we won't be discovering something as big as Electricity again or Microprocessors or Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics and so forth, now we can only change our Brain and create new universes by changing our Brain circuits and design, but at that point we are no longer even in This Universe...).

So the first principles of Music with classical Music creating the basics from 1600 to 1700 then the romantics from 1700 to 1800 then more romantics and such from 1800 to 1900 and then the 20th century that finished the job of invention and discovery. And you can see that classical Music did create the most generalized form of Music construction by the fact that Movie Music, Cartoon Music and such is essentially written formal Music that can describe any situation, can create any possible atmosphere and feeling and pathos and so forth, the most generalized form of Music, anything can be described by a Musical Comment, Music written that can describe anything at all as seen in Film Music and such.

But even just looking at pretty songs and "commercial music", I think that 80 % of the best and prettiest songs and such have been constructed and invented in the 20th century: all the possible pretty songs that could be written have probably been written, now we are left with creating noise and crazy.

Case in point, what music as pretty as Burt Bacharach's Music has been written since the year 2000 ?
Where is a song like "The Look Of Love" or "Alfie" or "Walk on By" or "What the World needs Now is Love" and so on ? Where are songs as pretty as some Beatles songs ? Where is the "Somewhere over the Rainbow" or something like "People" sung by Judy Garland and such ? Something like "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" Simon Garfunkle and so on: the list is very long and quite impressive...

And also songs and Music from other countries like Italy "Senza Fine" or Lucio Battisti and so with many other countries, and the list goes on.

WHat I am getting at is the best songs have all been written, the first principles have been established, now it is all a game of combinations, of creating new myths: of course Music is Culture, is Tribal, is Fashion so maybe a new generation will not consider any of the above worth anything but only some new form of Rap or Noise or anything else worthy as Valid Music, Subjectivity is always King, as MAN IS THE INFINITELY PROGRAMMABLE MACHINE that can create new artistic inventions having any arbitrary value a consensus of a corresponding social group assigns it...anthropology...


The Spark Plug

Music in the Future...



Re: The Future of Music

Postby _________ » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:26 am
Congratulations, you've done the same thing Steve Reich started doing a few decades ago. It's called "phasing". The cool thing, in his opinion, is how things progress through these various stages of cohesiveness and chaos.

The rest of this is going to be a little abrasive, because I highly recommend you do some more research before making claims like you have here. You touch on a number of things that have been discussed at length in a number of academic and non-academic circles for quite some time, and there's no scarcity of literature on the matter(s). Indeed, Wikipedia is a great resource for such things; I used the hell out of it when I was just starting to seriously explore melody, harmony, and the realms beyond. I'm going to be hard on you, and I'll pull no punches--because I have faith that, if you're really interested in music, you'll be able to handle it; being able to handle people telling you, "You're fucking stupid, and you have no talent," is probably the most valuable asset you can possibly have in this (or any) artistic endeavor. So without further ado, here's where you majorly fucked up in the few paragraphs I took the time to read.

First, people who think "music is a sequence of numbers" tend to make really shitty music--because they're doing math, not composition. Don't get me wrong, numbers are a great way to get ideas and to get those creative juices flowing, but when you do math instead of making creative decisions based on the psychoacoustics of the thing, you kind of miss the whole point. If written and/or performed well, music can convey ideas to anyone with the capacity for hearing; it speaks across all language barriers, and seems to grab us in the most intimate way possible. This is how millions of people can walk around thinking a song was written just for them--that it's "their" song--though the composer probably has no fucking clue that they even exist.

So, "if 40,000 numbers create a second of sound..." is a gargantuan 'if', because they don't; numbers aren't a creative but a descriptive unit. They are abstract objects, whereas oscillations are not (or at least the phenomenon we signify with the word 'oscillation'). You can say that A4 is any thing oscillating at a rate of 440 times per second, but that's still descriptive and, moreover, is only true for that intonation. I can take 111hz for my A1, and thus my A4 would be 444hz, which, in my opinion, is a cooler number than 440. Would you be able to tell the difference without the two notes being sounded simultaneously? If we were, for instance, in the middle of nowhere, and the only thing we had was an acoustic guitar (also assuming neither of us had perfect pitch), I could generate my harmonic series just about anywhere, and unless you had some highly trained ears, you'd never know the difference (because the frequency ratios would be more or less equivalent to the equally tempered scale that takes A1 as 110hz).

The next part of what's wrong with what you wrote stems from an inadequate understanding of how one graphs a function. If we're dealing with oscillations, and we're going to address the waveform--which makes it easy and two-dimensional (rather than four)--then assuming we have a simple, timbre-less wave (I'll briefly explain what timbre is and why this further complicates your error/s in the next paragraph), then we should be well aware that any line segment is composed of an infinite number of points. This is why when you indicate that a number x is greater than 3 and less than or equal to 4, you notate it (3,4], and not [3.1,4], or [3.01,4], or [3.001,4], ad infinitum. I think it's pretty obvious that 40,000 isn't equal to infinity, so even saying, "40,000 numbers create 1x10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999th of a millisecond of sound," is just not correct--even if numbers were a creative unit (which they aren't).

Unfortunately, it gets worse for you, because no musical sound is a 'single line'; this is because of timbre, which informs you that the same note sounds remarkably different when coming from the human vocal chords, a violin, a grand piano, the hum of an engine, a blue whale, or a flatulent elephant. The waveform of a given timbre is composed of a number of waves, but still only represents the thing; the best recording of a grand piano on the best speakers still can't give you every overtone you'd hear were you standing next to the thing, because there isn't a grand piano inside your speakers. This gets into the harmonic series. You see, if I hit C1 on a grand piano, I'm not just hearing C1, but also C2, G2, C3, E3, G3, and so on, each successive vibratory mode being less audible than the last. The relative prevalence of certain overtones more or less constitutes the tone color. There are entire books devoted to this aspect of acoustics, so instead of trying to condense a few millennia of human knowledge into a few paragraphs, I'm going to advise you to take a course in the basics of music theory, which will be good for you anyway.

(For the sake of being thorough, timbre may also refer to the approach to playing an instrument, which still bears upon the brief definition above, but is a little more subtle, as two performers can evoke different timbres from the same instrument.)

"You could draw an entire landscape of all the valleys and mountains corresponding to the intensities of the frequencies and harmonics and how they change in time and then convert it back to sound, another form of image to sound generator, another way to actually draw music, to paint it by using the fourier series, the fourier transform of sound, by creating an imaginary fourier series, an imaginary series of sine and cosine values with intensities and how they vary in time and creating a spectrogram, a spectrograph, a sonogram of the sound and inverting it directly back to sound again, through software and machines, whatever..."

Remove every occurrence of the word "music" in that paragraph, replace it with the word "sound", and I'll have no problem with it.

Incidentally, you may like Varese and his floating "sound objects" in Arcana.



The first time I heard that piece, I thought "Hey, here's someone who's lost his fucking mind." After hearing some of his explorations into the realm of electronics, I revised my opinion of the piece to "Hey, here's someone who's lost his fucking mind, but didn't have the right instruments to express it, and tried to make due."

Or Ives' Concord Sonata:



The only problem with this spectrum of "music" is that anyone with an understanding of the musical notation of rhythm and harmony (and often, some serious virtuosity at a given instrument), but absolutely no creative musical talent could write this sort of thing and say, "Hey, don't bitch at me because you're too stupid to understand it; look, I'll play it exactly the same every time. I intend to do that--therefor it's creative--and, because you don't understand it, it's esoteric and brilliant and so ahead of its time--and god knows I just transcribed a recording of my tone-deaf, delirious Aunt beating the hell out of her cats on my piano in between my improvisation on ideas similar to Debussy, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, et al., but you can't say anything because you'll be a fucking Nazi, you fucking Nazi pig." When they carted Nietzsche off to the loony-bin, they said he was banging away at the piano like a madman. How do they know he wasn't anticipating "the future of music"?

When does music become simply drawing on staves? When does esotericism become an excuse for having no talent? Those are the questions. I consider Ives' piece to be an example of marginal talent with a shit-ton of academic intellectualization as filler--but as I said, I may just be a stupid fucking Nazi.

I'll leave you with Leo Ornstein's Suicide In An Airplane, which I hold to be an absolutely brilliant work of art.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:10 am
Location: _________




Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:38 am
Good response, at least it's not a one liner...

Some things may have still never been done: like changing a short line of melody and time signature from the next one and so on with each time signature and melody being very different from the previous: not like free jazz, but like a very short song like melody (or any random number combination to make the melody) lasting from 3 to 10 seconds played at a certain speed (and maybe variable speed, somewhat variable) and then change the sound segment again but with a very different melody and speed of play and then again and so on for an entire album of 40 minutes.

I have rarely heard this done intentionally, but some of Frank Zappa pieces have some examples and Henry Cow have a very good example in their piece Amygdala (their first album I think).

So think of the combinations possible:

segment 1 then segment 2 then segment 3 etc. for 40 minutes each segment made up of 12 notes and a speed from 1 to 20 seconds (or whatever) maybe so: 10^15 melodies played at 20 different speeds so you can end up having more than 10^20 possible combinations and an album of 40 minutes would be even more possible new albums, trillions of new albums some being really good and of course the melodies and pieces could be played according to so many different instruments and chords and timbres and so forth...

So we need a machine to design out all the new albums and then you just need to listen to them and make your choice of what segment sets you like and so forth.

Anyways, the point is that you like the music because of the memory of the segment sets you learn, hence the idea that the music is difficult because you have to memorize and learn all the segment sets, like Amygdala, only after listening to that piece 10 or 20 times do you learn all the subsongs and so forth... (has anyone made a similar piece ? we need more examples) or is it the idea only counts, you need just one example and that is the only one you need to express an idea so then why so many different free jazz records, we only need a few Cecil Taylor records to get the idea, the first principle.

But my take on contemporary music and free jazz is that they jumped into making it too free (or noise) to fast instead of experimenting with all of the middle of the road possibilities...



8
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am

Monday, January 20, 2014

spectrum to music converter


Re: Reality, deeper than Reality...

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:43 pm
Another system can be by the designing of a spectrogram, drawing, designing a graph of a spectrum of an imaginary piece of music, and inventing how the graph changes in time and converting it to a piece of sound - music.

You could draw an entire landscape of all the valleys and mountains corresponding to the intensities of the frequencies and harmonics and how they change in time and then convert it back to sound, another form of image to sound generator, another way to actually draw music, to paint it by using the fourier series, the fourier transform of sound, by creating an imaginary fourier series, an imaginary series of sine and cosine values with intensities and how they vary in time and creating a spectrogram, a spectrograph, a sonogram of the sound and inverting it directly back to sound again, through software and machines, whatever...



the ape thing

Friday, January 17, 2014

Reality, deeper than Reality...

Reality, deeper than Reality...

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:36 am
Reality, deeper than Reality...

From:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=185037

So if 40,000 numbers create a second of sound, how many numbers are needed to create all possible sounds that nature can generate ? the collision of items of nature, of chunks of Matter, the interaction between chunks of matter can create maybe a billion different sounds, maybe a trillion (so maybe the first 15 numbers of the sound wave (or 15 numbers of the sound wave signal separated by some minimum time span), of the waveform are enough to encompass all possible natural sounds, but anyways), but we can simply assign a larger number just to be sure: so all possible naturally occuring sounds created in the universe in any time point of the past, present or future by any means may be maybe 10^100 (that means a number having 100 zeros, a pretty big number) but if the code composed of 100 numbers represents a signature of something reality can produce, matter can produce, it is still a very small number of combinations compared to one second of sound made up of 40,000 numbers: so that means the random combination of maybe 15 numbers of the sound wave contains many (if not the majority of the combinations, for sure) sounds that do not and cannot occur naturally in nature by any means: but the fact that we can simply assign the combination and play it back means we created a new sound that nature could never have created! And this also explains why when really trying to create a wav file of music through random numbers or any combination of numbers, very seldom do we hear anything of interest to us: that is natural, we evolved in such a way that only the signature sounds that nature can really produce have become significant to us, we have neural networks that have evolved expectations of sounds, combinations that represent a signature of something, etc. while all those other combinations of numbers represent nothing intelligible to us, (let alone harmony, etc.).

BUt the fact that we can invent new sounds, hence new signals and waveforms, means we can invent new perceptions of reality if we modify the perceiving neural networks to create meaning for them, etc. It means we can extend reality mathematically, we can extend Matter and Reality and Perceptions and Possible Experiences mathematically, as in Mathematically Enhanced Music. But just as we can extend the sense of sound, we can do the same for other senses and actually create new senses and so forth through modified brains and so forth. So the real elementary particles of reality are the numbers, the sequence of numbers represented by the waveforms of music and sound not atoms or elementary particles, and we can also invert the system and make the sense of touch be decoded through the sense of sound creating new touch perceptions, and the sense of sight decoded through the sense of sound by decoding sight as a signal like sound and music creating new images that reality could never have created and so forth, we actually create reality deeper than reality, we actually use the real and true elementary particles of existence and Reality and Matter which is the signal, the Information Relationship, the sequence of numbers converted from digital to analog that create reality, a super reality as a superset of the small subset of reality that natural evolution created for us, but we use this little - poor reality as a launching pad to explore deeper realities made up of a much larger space of combinations of possibilities, etc.

Matter and Touch and Sight is overrated compared to sound, sound can give us much more insights into the functioning of brains and Artificial Reality, and we can convert sound into touch and sight and also the other way around as images and touch are also signals, waveforms and as computers teach, all items are simply digital files, delimited entities of numbers, and so forth, the sky is the limit!

This could be a clarification on the concept of Information Relationship: as actually what I am getting at is really signals, waveforms, waveforms decoded by an observer, etc. And in fact the sequence of numbers corresponding to the waveforms is much more fundamental to reality than Matter itself, or Elementary Particles or Atoms in as much that the signals, the waveforms create the Information, the event, the perception and hence the reality in a much depper meaning and form than atoms or matter: and in fact particles, as in physics, elementary particles are overrated compared to the true fundament of all reality which is Signals, Events, Information, Waveforms perceived and decoded by a Processor - Observer, etc.



ted
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Thursday, January 16, 2014

directly draw the waveform of music...





Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:59 pm
from:

http://board.soundclick.com/viewtopic.php?t=407034

Let's put this thing upon two feet:

So if music is a sequence of numbers, the numbers being about 40,000 a second, so you need about 2 million numbers for a minute of music, the numbers being sampled to then recreate an analog waveform, the digital to analog conversion of the numbers create an analog waveform that is then decoded and perceived by the brain as sound and music, the brain probably does signal processing on this waveform, breaking it down into its fourier transform components and such, etc. then in theory you could simply compose a piece of music by writing down a sequence of 2 million numbers, or you could directly draw the waveform that is then played: of course the waveform would be very long as you would need 40,000 distinct amplitudes (signal levels) to create the waveform of the sound - music.

You could morph one waveform of one track into another, or play the intermediate track, you could do all kinds of tricks on the waveforms to create new music, you could even write down the sequence of numbers, or create programs that write down the numbers of a piece of music, who knows, the sky is the limit! you could draw the waveform of the music and the composer becomes simply a drawer, a graphic artist, etc.

Of course things are more complicated than this in the sense that the waveform that corresponds to harmony and something musical for us is very particular, most experiments won't yield much, but it is worth trying and discovering millions of new pieces of music like this.

This is the real future of music, finally free from any and all constraints, especially cultural, human and biased constraints, now the music is really free, absolutely free, we have won, the concept has been created, now go for it man, go man go!, and start composing like this man, do it man, first gear, its all right, second gear hold on tight, third gear, you're out of sight!!!


groovy man groovy,


the turd

Thursday, January 9, 2014

events...



Re: The Event Set

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:02 pm
nameta9 wrote:The Event Set

In the beginning there was solid entities..
.
.
But since we can design any kinds of events and Event Set

Therein lay the fantasy.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13306
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:05 pm




Re: The Event Set

Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:13 pm
It is all a question of static and moving, what is the fixed skeleton upon which the events express themselves, the circuits are the static fixed plan, project within which the signals will cross, the signals are the events but without a fixed static substrate you couldn't express the events and signals as they vary compared to the fixed substrate.

So you need an arbitrary fixed chunk of Matter compared to an arbitrary varying frequency upon it, hence these are all variables and can be designed as any at all. The spectrum going from static - solid - frozen to high frequency and trillions of events occuring in parallel like in the center of Star plasmas is analog, can vary linearly, you can have any amount of the Event Set and Experience Space and Information Realtionship Sets divided into any amount of fixed and varying, static and moving, any precentage of fixed compared to varying, etc.

Sound and Music express this well, you see that the essence of the information and perception is frequency, is a waveform, etc. and indeed even images and sights are something that can be perceived only through circuits that are active, alive, that have constant frequencies occuring amongst themselves, constant events and signals that make the eye brain machine work, since that is how the brain perceives images and all else, through signals and frequencies and moving against static, although I suspect that images and pictures are being perceived through circuits having much higher frequency signals and events flowing through them compared to sound wave circuits.

But consider: if 0 is static and 10 is moving what is 4, 456, -4.56 ? and I don't mean amount of moving or static but completely new properties that are related (as in free physics) with these entities, as place holders, etc.

And consider if 0 is sound and 100 is image, what is 34 or 3566 or -7.5678 ? and I don't mean amount of sound or image but completely new properties that are related (as in free physics) with these entities, as place holders, etc. But you can also INVENT (as all that counts is inventing and playing around and playing "make believe") that this can mean mixed properties or even morphed properties (music morphing into images, or a track of music morphing into another track), but also completely new properties unrelated or related that signal new wicked possibilities, etc.


also check out:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=185037


and for music we can imagine tracks of music morphing into other tracks linearly...

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Future of Music - 2


Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:27 am
Future of Music - 2

You can also just take 10 time slots of only 10 albums and superimpose them, let them play all at the same time, let them play in parallel: you can also get 10 billion possible new tracks or albums this way. What is important is that you don't try to recognize or follow any single line from any given album, actually, it would be better if you didn't know any of the albums at all and you couldn't distinguish any of the lines playing in parallel. In this way you can appreciate the sound just as it is, you can appreciate the resulting "composition", the result as an experiment in music, etc.

Of course these are all variable numbers, the mashup, the mix, the superimposing of tracks could be from 2 albums or a trillion albums (the same ones played from diffeent points in time of the albums), they could be intermittent (some albums or tracks on and off, etc.), the combinations are really never ending, etc.

Another way to create new tracks is to create 10 sets of 10 random notes, each set played at a different speed (like amygdala of henry cow) : even in this case you can create 10 billion tracks: of course the notes could be cords, mellotron sounds, or whatever, the speeds whatever, the number of notes whatever and so forth, again these are all variable numbers.

A program idea that corresponds to this is the following maybe:

in perl, $s is the note (you can see it graphically from DOS or UNIX command line), $c and $y the random formula or whatever, $x hoe to change the speed of execution, etc.

$s="*************************************************************************
$c=1.00007333;
$t=1000000;

for(0..17){
$c=$c-0.00000170;
$y=$c;
for(0..7){
$y=$y**3;
$x=substr($y,9,2);
print$x."\n";
print substr($s,0,$x)."\n";
for($j=0;$j<$t;$j++){};
}
$t=1000000;
if($x>50&&$x<80) { $t=5000000}
if($x<50) { $t=7000000}
if($x<25) { $t=2000000}
if($x>85) { $t=13000000}
print$x."==".$t."==\n";
}
exit;


$nn=0;

for(0..100)
{
for($i=0;$i<10;$i++)
{$x[$i]=new number;}

$t=new delay;


for($i=0;$i<10;$i++)

{ print $x[$i],' ';
for($j=0;$j<$t;$j++){};
}



And then you can have image to sound converters, pictures to tracks converters, converting a picture to a track of music digitally (and the opposite) etc. And maybe you can one day have the possibility to compose a track by directly designing the waveform of the music (but most attempts don't give anything interesting), after all a track is just a sequence of numbers in time, so one minute of music may be 10 million bytes or so): a track is just a file, a digital entity, and the computer sees everything as a digital entity and can convert anything into anything, can convert them and manipulate them all in any way and mix them and process them all in any way, etc.

check out:

www.soundclick.com forums,

http://instantsingularity1.blogspot.it/

http://instantsingularity3.blogspot.it/
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

The Future of Music


The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:42 pm
The Future of Music

So I was bored and started to play different tracks in parallel, I started to superimpose different albums, songs, pieces of music on top of each other, and started superimposing 4 or 5 different tracks, sometimes related, sometimes not as a type of music goes. I used soundclick and youtube choosing random music pieces (but mostly techno, electronic, noise and some fusion jazz aka soft machine or whatever) and enjoyed the mashup, the mixed up music, some of it was really interesting and new sounding!

So consider that there are maybe 5 million albums of different music out there, but just consider 100 albums (sometimes if they are very different from each other the results may be even more intriguing) and divide them up into 10 batches of ten different albums: that would make 10 billion different combinations of 10 different albums superimposed on top of each other, of ten different albums played in parallel at the same time. SO you could record 10 billion new records, 10 billion new albums!

Of course you can tweak alot with this idea and perfect it, experiment all you want, but even if only 1 out of 10,000 experiments is really good, you still got a million new interesting albums out there, brand new!

The fact is there is so much music available on youtube or soundclick or soundcloud or purevolume etc. that you no longer need to create the basis of the music, just mix what is out there differently (like DJ), the sky is the limit: this is probably the future of alot of new music, the mixing creates combinations and ideas that you would never have imagined or composed or thought up.

SO do it man, just do it, experiment and publish all those new albums, the wilder they sound the better, go man go, first gear its all right, second gear hold on tight, third gear you're out of sight...




the turd

shapc a lak, shpack , i win, like a cry baby i win always, shpavck a lack cinderella crazy, barbie confused, yellow funk machine... we all live in the ...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

The Event Set





The Event Set

Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:54 pm
The Event Set

In the beginning there was solid entities, no movements, only blocks of solid state or void or atoms fixed in stable positions, etc. No movements, no events (although there are always some events occuring since absolute zero can never be achieved and photons constantly interact with atoms and virtual particles of the quantum void constantly pop up out of nowhere, etc.). But the random events of particles colliding, of atoms colliding of different temperature ranges creating all kinds of aggregations, sets and delimitations of Matter in the universe from hot stellar plasmas at the center of stars to completely still - static and frozen planets far from stars create an Event and eventually Event Sets, repetitive events occuring creating repetitive patterns, formatting of reality, the frequency modulation of matter upon itself and the frequency modulation of a frequency modulation creating ever more repetitive structures creating all kinds of Event Sets defined by the point like events occuring within a cube of Matter and how they self organize themselves etc.

And within this delimited area of any size, the events create regularity, create molecules, temporary machine like entities (like biological machines and molecules and reactions within cells, etc.): but any Event Set may be imposed, invented, evolved or whatever upon any delimited cube of Matter and hence, when any kind of Observer - Processor entity emerges from a given Event Set, that Observer may experience and "live within" any kind of possible universe (from the observer's point of view, since there is in fact no universe at all, only the Event Set a Processor is trapped within and interacting within) having any kinds of regularities, interaction sets, information relationship sets, etc.

So Events create reality, only things happening, only recording of the history of things occuring and repeating create reality, and in fact we are all based on time slots, frequencies, the Human Machine is based on the frequency of heart beats, computers have a clock cycle, something must be constantly interacting, colliding, measuring, something must be constantly happening to be "alive" so to say, there is no reality outside events, only a skeleton of modes of interactions that will be generated as with molecules in living items, the reactions all occuring in parallel and synchronized and the information flows amongst these molecules and electrical signals in Man Brains decoding the world according to the arbitrary Event Set this brain is trapped within, etc.

But since we can design any kinds of events and Event Set, any kind of Processor can be trapped within it and live any kind of life, experience and universe. The Event Set defines both the Universe and the Processor observing that universe.

The Processor can create any elaborate and complex circuit defining the meaning of events, how they relate to its rules and memories and feelings and sense organs, how the interfaced machine to said processor interacts with the outside reality through other events, hence a set of events etc.

We can also invert it all, all upside down, the event sets can become solids and the atoms all events, for example, just like music can define a solid reality and the brain become a sound wave and so forth : interesting how music explicitly makes us aware of the events occuring, how real it seems, since it is all frequencies and things constantly changing, all modulations and interlocking and snychronized frquencies, relationships, just like computers executing programs are all interlocking and frequencies of bits flowing in a repetitive pattern with decision points, etc.

The events create the world, Matter, Reality, the Universe: create a new set of events, interlocking and synchronized events occuring in the most variable way, in the most random point in time and space and with repetitive patterns and regularities of all kinds and you can create the Universe with the most incredible possible experiences and lives occuring...wildy new Laws of Physics, etc.


tard

Monday, January 6, 2014

Beware, No One Notices...





Beware, No One Notices...

Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:28 am
Beware, No One Notices...

The years from 2001 to now can be divided into two segments: from 2001 to 2007 about, the twin towers attacks, terrorism, airplane security and especially the wars in Irak and Afganistan were the FOCUS of news, politics, debates, movements, etc. And then, all of a sudden, the Economic crisis of 2007 - 2008 and the continuous recession or low economic growth period (especially of the EU, but also the USA)dominated all the news and focus and erased the focus from terrorism and Irak.

It is as if there was an intentionality to take the focus off 2 lost and blunder wars, Irak and Afganistan and focus the worldwide public opinion on something else, and what better else could that be than economic problems ?

And in fact what will take the focus off this now 7 years long economic crisis can only be another powerful terrorist attack against the USA or EU, so beware, Al Qaeda or whatever they are may be preparing some big show, sometime in the near future: and then it is only a question of probability, after so many years with no big attack to the west, they probably are preparing something and this will end all the focus on the economy.

What is really mind boggling is how fast Irak went off the radar, how fast everyone forgot about that total s*ithole and failed state and civil war and how the war against the dictator was probably a bad idea and badly executed and so forth. From 2002 to 2006 the total focus was all on Irak and the war and Bushes "if your not part of the solution you are part of the problem" and so forth. And then after the 2008 crisis everyone simply completely forgot about it and talked about the economy, the tea party, occupy wall street, the EU debt crisis and so forth.

So strange, maybe there was a definite conspiracy and plan to let the economic crisis explode exactly in the year 2007 - 8 to make everyone forgot about the twin towers and the Irak war and terrorism and such. A planned economic crisis by some "powers that be" ? ....

Precision Science ?



Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:43 pm
nameta9 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:The actual first principle(s) never change and never will.


There are an infinite number of First Principles and No First principles at the same time.

What "first principle" specified that conclusion?
Whatever it was, it was false.
Why do you think that first principles are infinite in number?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:05 pm




Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:58 am
Infinite number of new Processors interacting with new Event Sets and hence Experience Sets and hence discovering Infinite number of "New Laws of Physics", hence Infinite Number of First Principles ...


From:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177834

Is Reality Physics - Mathematics ?

The unreasonable precision with which mathematics describes reality has always puzzled physicists. The reason is most likely because the reality described is not really a reality and is much more so a Technology: an invention, mostly a machine, as most of those equations and interactions and experiments and laws have been furnished by how machines and devices interact with some kind of detached reality, a reality that is in essence pretty far away from nature, if with nature you mean the pure random blind forces operating under nature like inside stars (plasmas), the forces modeling the earth (earthquakes, mountain formation), the weather and most of the random natural events that occur like ocean waves and their exact form and design (can you predict them with mathematical precision ?). Of course we know and can apply mathematics to all of such, we know the general forces and such, but the precision is no longer "unreasonable".

So what scientists do is confuse technology with nature, confuse a mathematical model and description and design of technological machines with nature, as if the technology is nature: but it is not so, technology is a very specifically configured slab of matter that closely follows and abides to mental, linguistic and especially mathematical models: what came first the technological machine and interaction or the mental mathematical model ? Mostly the other way around, the mental mathematical models influenced what kinds of contraptions we would design according to clear cut needs and functions according to how we interact with reality.

SO in essence, there is no "unreasonable precision" of mathematics to reality, but only a mostly reasonable precision of mathematics to machines that interact with reality and confuses us into thinking that they are reality. Like a particle accelerator: are they simply studying an engineered device or really studying the laws of physics ?

Matter is set up so as to express mathematical relationships, so as to emphasize mathematical relationships. Our mathematical models are more than anything mostly machines, mental models of machines that are providing us a function and as such easily lend themselves to models and especially mathematical models. Since the functions and operations the machines must provide have been defined and created within a mental model of reality through language, they already, from the outset have properties that imply models and eventually mathematical, precision models, models where you can apply equations and predictions and perfect them accordingly, but because the function is clearly defined and clearly delimited by language and the model and then mathematical models further delimit and perfect them: and then machines are designed and constructed and experimented within a very controlled and predictable environment, no free wills opposing their forces to what the machines must do, no random forces and quirk details messing up models like what happens in most of real natural systems and not modelized and forced systems carving their function out of reality, by force.

At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.

The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.

When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.

So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...

and



"how is the study of the bio considered technology??"

1) Biology is not even a science, it is based on studying a completely arbitrary, make believe fluke of a contraption Matter decided to produce through a completely fake, artificial, make believe process of Natural Evolution (a fancy way to simply say the Ball of Matter that is the Earth decided to play with itself and created (nay invented, just because, because Matter was "bored") Man Brains) with no necessity or goal in mind, no need for Matter to wake up and make believe that it is alive, it should have stayed in bed and sleep instead, where its "Natural" place in the universe is: in other words, Matter and Mass Energy should just stop fooling around with itself creating contraptions that become alive and make believe that they are real when they are total lies and fake and inventions with no value whatsoever (see what happens when you don't believe in GOD anymore ?). Matter should be still, dead, should not be conscious or alive, should be blind, a void, empty, please give us back nothing, good old nothing forever, void, empty, please kill all possible life in the universe, stop this lie of Matter pretending to be alive, kill Nature...Thank You. You're Welcome.

2) The "science" of biology is 100 % based on Intentionalities of Use, of decisions and models and goals already assigned from the outset and only according to how it relates to pain/pleasure circuits, to how we can interact and manipulate matter accordingly, how we can devise new Information Relationships to achieve our satisfaction and such.

3) Since Physics and Mathematics (and the corollary logic, language, thought processes) are all based on reductionism, on precise patterns revealed, on precise mathematical or logical relationships discovered (but really invented, in a subtle way), but especially mathematical and therefore perceived as being so precise, and correct and incredible, and since from there on all of the other sciences build on top of Physics and Math and such, scientists conclude that there is something magical and mysterious in the way mathematics "describes" our state of affairs: nothing further from the truth, Matter is simply just talking to itself and making things up and lying to itself and inventing and creating virtualities (mental models and Intentionalities of Use) and such, all based on implied mental models and thought models and processes and therefore language, logic and mathematics, and looking at itself in the mirror and saying to itself, look how "precise" I am and such. Obviously this is the case of the Observer also being the Observed, the Processor also being the Information Item upon which the Processor is operating upon and such.

But to finally reveal how unprecise science really is, try to predict the exact next earthquake (and intensity and shape and such), try to predict the exact shape of the next cloud (mathematically, in millimeter terms, just like quantum electrodynamics predicts mass and charge and such of elementary particles, when it is really just predicting the huge precision of precision instruments set up to express mathematical relationships from the outset, the precision is already given since the machines are designed precisely and such), try to predict the exact shape and form of an ocean wave or the mountain shape, etc.

But the reason why you don't want to or "need to" predict the precision of those elements (try to predict the precise configuration of pebbles on a street and such) is because we don't need to do anything with it, it is outside of our usage (our function space), as a function for us to use, we can't do anything with that precision, hence it becomes irrelevant and not important but especially because we can't build any machine around that precision, we can't construct any technology or function around the precision of the exact shape of a cloud and such. So, as you see the Intentionality of Use creates the need for a Function and hence for a Machine, a Task, an Operation and hence the origin of the "Unreasonable Precision of Mathematics in Describing the World".
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1864
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am




Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:01 am
and from:

http://instantsingularity.blogspot.it/2 ... nship.html


Re: Information Relationship

Postby nameta9 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:52 pm
At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.

The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.

When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.

So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...

TOBOR THE 8 MAN

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Invent the new world with new events...





Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Postby nameta9 » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:19 pm
James S Saint wrote:The actual first principle(s) never change and never will.


There are an infinite number of First Principles and No First principles at the same time. It depends on the "Event Set" the Observer is living in: our Man Brain and consequently our civilization has mostly expired the possible Event Set we can interact through, as the models of the world, the knowledge, the theory and the intentionality of use we perform depends on the accumulation of events, experiences, interactions, a fixed set of repetitive interactions and patterns crystallized in our mind and behavior and reinforced through social consensus based in the many multiplying instances of similar Man brains confirming themselves and talking to themselves essentially even though they have the illusion of talking to other separate and different man brains (people talking to each other are really simply talking to themselves and one format of the world through one fixed example of a Man Brain).

Now a solid is a set of particles where nothing is happening, you need an event, energy, you need them to move around and collide with each other, you need interactions to then create events and then memorize the events and order them logically according to any models the man brain is designed to decode. But you need temperature, an energy, something moving compared to everything frozen, etc. That is why we explore higher and higher energies in particle physics, to discover new events, interactions, new possible patterns and so forth, the beam of energy as the temperature set creating new events, else all would be frozen and not produce any interactions.

But our Event Set is now mostly expired, known, most patterns decoded, and in fact science has to reach out to farther and farther limbos to try to discover new things, high energy beams, black holes, extreme low temperatures, all things at the limits and so forth, remote, complex, not everyday things. Because our event set is expired: but event sets are arbitrary, events and interactions can be any at all, can be organized in any way at all, any event can be designed, is a decision point, any ordering of arbitrary events in Processors, new minds can generate new First Principles and worlds, hence events, interactions as point like signals and their accumulation construct the world, but can construct any arbitrary world according to what events and signals are chosen, how the Processor decodes them and interacts and what the new Event Set is: since these can be any at all, an infinite amount of new Event Sets meaning interaction sets, experience sets, and hence Universe with New Laws of Physics, etc.


the tard

Confusion on Progress...


Confusion on Progress...

Postby nameta9 » Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:43 pm
Confusion on Progress...

Be careful when talking about and considering the ideas such as "We are going forward", "science is progressing", "we are increasing our knowledge", "technology is going forward", etc.

This should all be broken down into three fundamental segments:

1) New First Principles, new fundamental discoveries, new fundamental ideas, new "Paradigm changes" and these are those great fundamental discoveries and experiments and formulas that changed the way the world is and how we apply our knowledge to it such as Newton and Calculus and Mechanics, Maxwell's equations and Electromagnetism, The theory of Evolution, and Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, DNA and Genetic Engeneering and many other real fundamental discoveries (oil discovered and applied), theories and ideas that become solid First Principles;

2) New Applications of first principles and new applications of technological discoveries: new first principles often imply new applications and new possibilities, new technologies, etc such as the Steam Engine and the railroad, Electricity and all of what can be done with electricity, the Engine, Automobiles, Airplanes, Jet Planes, Atomic Energy and Atom Bombs, Computers and then Microprocessors and then Personal Computers and then the Internet, reinforced concrete and skyscrapers and elevators etc .

3) The multiplication of instances, examples of production of items that then become standard but are just variations on a theme: so you have a billion cars produced in the 20th century and they differ by design and incremental perfections of parts of it, suspension systems, engines, consumption, speed, etc, but in the end they are all just the constant multiplication of new examples of a fundamental old Application that appeared a hundred years ago: and so it is with airplanes then jets then rockets, and so it is with telephones and computers etc.

A 150 years ago buildings having more than 4 floors where rare: but with reinforced concrete and then elevators the world has become full of skyscrapers and multifloored buildings of all kinds, from 5 floors to 100 floors etc, but this is an example of constantly applying the same application over and over again as a variation on a theme, same with computers and smartphones: they just contain a telephone and camera in one box, but the telephone and camera are all old applications now, etc.

The hardest area to discern between applications and principles is biology - medicine - drugs: this area is both applications of knowledge and sometimes first principles at the same time, but often hard to judge and each patient has a different reaction and so forth: health care and medicine is a great arena for all of those who want to make believe they made great new discoveries, very hard to distinguish, hard to verify and so forth (that is why drugs have hundreds of counter problems and companies want to protect themselves, all drugs seem to be risky and can cause death) this is because medicine, biology, health care is not an exact science in many cases.

Music also had all of its first principles established in the last 400 years: Music is a science in that it is a manipulation of undetermined entities, of undefined entities according to patterns imposed, it is a manipulation of an abstract world (and newly designed minds could invert this and make solid reality manipulable like music and music become a solid reality, but this only with incredible new minds that work differently), it is a manipulation of reality according to technologies etc.

But just as the electric guitar produced an incredible new quantity of new music from 1950 on, the mellotron and computer music did not have the same effect, but in any case it is all electronics applied to music.

So most people think that new examples of old things, new instances of old things are progress, are a sign of science going forward. It is not, it is a sign of production, industrial production and the never ending production of new examples of mostly old items that increases, nothing fundamentally new. 20 new car models that will come out in the next few years and millions of new cars produced, 10 new smartphone examples in the next few years, 10 new techno bands or heavy metal bands that will appear in the next few years, 10 new skyscrapers and a 100 new 5 or 6 floor buildings that will appear in the next few years: so yes the application of old principles can increase forever, the combinations of how to design old applications is never ending, but nothing really game changing or new is being created, nothing that can really surprise you.

So the future of science is mostly 1) very few really new First Principles can be discovered, most have been made, maybe a handful are left, 2) a few new applications like something as new as the PC was and the Internet was when it came out, or the railroad, or car or jet, even here I can't imagine many 3) a never ending amount of "new" applications in the form of new instances of old applications, thousands of new car designs, buildings, rockets, drugs and medicine and body enhancers and what not, but these are all multiplying the number of old stabilized items, not really new items and not really meaning that "we are going forward", nay, this is the arena of political fights that will increase since everyone wants to apply the stabilized technology in one way or another (solar or nuclear ?) etc.

This also implies a decrease in the amount of work needed: a building needs a certain number of workers and once built can last a 100 years, a car needs a certain number of workers but lasts 10 years, a smartphone can be eventually produced by an automatic factory and may need very few workers, so we end up needing less and less work also. A building or car has many other subsystems needed, the car an engine, a window, a seat, etc. but a smartphone has only a few Integrated circuits, end of story, hence very little work needed or generated to produce the item. And we are going towards a world where people buy ever more smartphones and fewer homes and cars (because they have less money).

And then we will start to manipulate the Mind Brain and the world will never be the same again, the Instant Singularities, new universes, the last and greatest discovery is the end of all reality and discovery and the entrance into a trillion new worlds where yes, there will be trillions of new First Principles and applications beyond anything you can behold...



turd
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am