Instant Singularity 3

IronMan79 · by **obe** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:11 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

IronMan79 · by **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

IronMan79 · by **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...

IronMan79 · by **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

IronMan79 · by **nameta9** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:38 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.

IronMan79 · by **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

IronMan79 · by **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

Instant Singularity 3

Monday, September 22, 2014

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Re: The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Sunday, September 21, 2014

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

The problem of Quantum Observation Resolved

Thursday, September 18, 2014

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

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

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

Friday, February 21, 2014

Music has finished Discovering

Re: The Future of Music

Music in the Future...

Re: The Future of Music

Re: The Future of Music

Monday, January 20, 2014

spectrum to music converter

Re: Reality, deeper than Reality...

Friday, January 17, 2014

Reality, deeper than Reality...

Re: The Future of Music