No problem. Think of me be as a portal to Xanadu. 😳
System synergies: Chaotic or predictable?
When speaking of system "synergies", do you consider these to be chaotic? or are they a predictable sum of the character of the components? I'm surprised at people who think they can predict the sound of a system from their perceptions of the components (derived, in turn, from other system combinations), and even more surprised and suspicious of the 'tone control' approach to purchasing cables and amplifiers suggested by another forum member (who does happen to be a dealer).
I think these two views are contradictory. If we think that components have 'magical' synergies beyond our ability to measure, then it seems unlikely that we also can predict how combinations of components will sound.
I think these two views are contradictory. If we think that components have 'magical' synergies beyond our ability to measure, then it seems unlikely that we also can predict how combinations of components will sound.
Showing 20 responses by geoffkait
Moreover, chances look good the Mind Lamp has been out of production for some time. I became a dealer ten years ago. That’s a lotta H2O under the bridge 🌉 For more info Google PEAR Princeton Engineering Anomaly Research. Psyleron was the spinoff. There’s also ICRL International Consciousness Research Laboratories, formerly PEAR. |
A moderately clever person using my Super Stiff Springs for speakers can accomplish the same thing as the rather expensive competition for 1/10 the cost. Talk amongst yourselves. Smoke if ya got em. And I can isolate the entire system with a combo of SSS and Baby Prometheans for a surprisingly low total cost. The deeper you go the higher you fly. |
kosst_amojan2,493 posts08-09-2019 2:03pmBiology is governed by physics because biology is based on chemistry. Chemistry is a mathematical science. Chemistry is actually not a mathematical science. Nor is biology. You should have listened to you mom and stayed in high school. Snap out of it! Wiki to the rescue: The branches of science, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science Pt. 1 - Chemistry In the scope of its subject, chemistry occupies an intermediate position between physicsand biology.[3] It is sometimes called the central science because it provides a foundation for understanding both basic and applied scientific disciplines at a fundamental level.[4] For example, chemistry explains aspects of plant chemistry (botany), the formation of igneous rocks (geology), how atmospheric ozone is formed and how environmental pollutants are degraded (ecology), the properties of the soil on the moon (astrophysics), how medications work (pharmacology), and how to collect DNA evidence at a crime scene (forensics). Pt. 2 - Mathematics The mathematical sciences are a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper. Statistics, for example, is mathematical in its methods but grew out of scientific observations[1] which merged with inverse probability and grew through applications in the social sciences, some areas of physics and biometrics to become its own separate, though closely allied field. Computer science, computational science, data science, population genetics, operations research, control theory, cryptology, econometrics, theoretical physics, fluid mechanics, chemical reaction network theory and actuarial science are other fields that may be considered part of mathematical sciences. |
Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution. Morphic resonance is a theory; like any theory it doesn’t have to obey arbitrary rules for what a theory must contain. That would be silly. Theories can be completely original. E.g., Einstein’s theory of Relativity. That’s how we expand our knowledge. A theory does not require proof, but, like Morphic resonance, often contains evidence. There is much evidence for Morphic resonance, if one looks. Obviously, if one doesn’t look, he will not see any evidence. 😬 The theory of Morphic resonance involves Morphic fields, which actually do not obey the physical laws of fields such as electrical fields, magnetic fields, mathematical fields, etc. - nor are they required to. Nor do all types of magnetic fields obey the same laws. The theory of Morphic resonance does include many of the basis concepts of the field of biology listed in the first paragraph above - chemical processes, physiological mechanisms and evolution, the latter being a primary part of Sheldrake’s theory as well as memory. From Wikipedia - The sense of hearing - The sound information from the cochlea travels via the auditory nerveto the cochlear nucleusin the brainstem. From there, the signals are projected to the inferior colliculusin the midbraintectum. The inferior colliculusintegrates auditory input with limited input from other parts of the brain and is involved in subconscious reflexes such as the auditory startle response. The inferior colliculus in turn projects to the medial geniculate nucleus, a part of the thalamuswhere sound information is relayed to the primary auditory cortexin the temporal lobe. Sound is believed to first become consciously experienced at the primary auditory cortex. Around the primary auditory cortexlies Wernickes area, a cortical area involved in interpreting sounds that is necessary to understand spoken words. Disturbances (such as strokeor trauma) at any of these levels can cause hearing problems, especially if the disturbance is bilateral. In some instances it can also lead to auditory hallucinationsor more complex difficulties in perceiving sound. Obviously audio involves both physics and biology. So, I actually your contention that biology theories are irrelevant to audio is a Strawman argument, a logical fallacy. |
Hey, millercarbon, thanks for posting the link. That’s mighty decent if ya! Here’s an excerpt from my opus on Morphic Fields for Audiophiles, “So, let's start with the hypothesis that information itself produces detrimental information fields and that those things, the electronic devices, that bring that information into the house, that are essentially the LINKS to the OUTSIDE WORLD OF INFORMATION, are also detrimental to the sound. Thus, TVs, computers, cell phones, as well as LPs, CDs, DVDs, Blu Ray discs, cassettes, I.e., all music and video media, produce detrimental info fields. i won't even get into books, magazines, newspapers, bank statements, telephone books and bar codes. So while it's nice to collect these CDs and records and have them all nicely arranged on the shelf the more you have the worse the sound gets. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. You're just not aware of the degradation of the sound because it happens over a long period of time - and even if you were clued into the degradation who would suspect the CDs, right? Who would suspect information fields? I mean, really. But I digress.” |
kosst_amojan The true test of a theory is whether it has explanatory and predictive powers in reality which are verifiable through experiment. No thought Sheldrake has ever produced measures up to that standard. Who cares if his dopey ideas match up with a mathematical theory? Mathematical theories only matter if they describe reality, and LOTS of mathematical theories and concepts are merely philosophical puzzles with no application in reality at all. It proves nothing. >>>>>Not sure what you’re trying to say but Morphic fields are not the same thing as mathematical field theory. It’s not a mathematical theory. It’s a biology theory. Before you can attack a theory you kind of have to know what it is you’re attacking, yes? Of course if you want to attack blindly.... 😎 Besides, Morphic resonance was proven in a contest. 😬 |
I should probably point out that the mathematical terminology information field theory is not (rpt not) what I am referring to when I use the term, information fields, which I equate to Morphic fields and Morphic resonance. Information field theory (IFT) is a Bayesian statistical field theory relating to signal reconstruction, cosmography, and other related areas.[1][2] IFT summarizes the information available on a physical field using Bayesian probabilities. It uses computational techniques developed for quantum field theory and statistical field theory to handle the infinite number of degrees of freedom of a field and to derive algorithms for the calculation of field expectation values. For example, the posterior expectation value of a field generated by a known Gaussian process and measured by a linear device with known Gaussian noisestatistics is given by a generalized Wiener filter applied to the measured data. IFT extends such known filter formula to situations with nonlinear physics, nonlinear devices, non-Gaussian field or noise statistics, dependence of the noise statistics on the field values, and partly unknown parameters of measurement. For this it uses Feynman diagrams, renormalisation flow equations, and other methods from mathematical physics.[3] |
Part of interview with David Bohm, an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoreticalphysicists of the 20th century[2] and who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind. Bohm: In 1951 or there about, another interpretation where I said that the electron is a particle for example and than it has a quantum field represented mathematically by its wavefunction. And this field and the particle are together and they … the properties, the quantum properties of the electron. It is a new kind of field. We now classicly have many fields like the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field for example… like it spread through space. The elecric field makes radiowaves radiating through space. The quantum field is different, it has some similarities but it is different, because the effect of the quantum field depends only on the form and not on the intensity. If you think of a waterwave, it is spreading out, the core … the more it spreads out the less the core … Now the quantum field would be capable of, sometimes, of spreading out the electron of far away move with the same energy of move close. This would be the kind of information of a discrete quantum process. Interviewer: So you have a field that does not drop off? Bohm: The field drops off, but its effect does not. The effect only depends on the form, not on the intensity. Interviewer: That is weird! Bohm: That is not so weird. In fact it is very common, but we generally don’t pay attention to it. |
Alert 🚨 The Sheldrake connection to Machina Dynamica. As fate would have it at least six count ‘em! of my products are based on Morphic resonance, the concept developed by Sheldrake and for audio applications by Peter Belt. The most obvious examples of my products are Morphic Message Labels but also the Teleportation Tweak and Quantum Temple Bell. There is an increasingly fine line between Morphic Resonance and quantum physics AND classical physics. |
Excerpt from my paper explaining how the Teleportation Tweak works. The problem. Yes, it’s our old friend, Information Fields, that’s the problem. It’s the thing itself AND the INFORMATION ABOUT THE THING, the meta data you could say. The information field is produced by the sum total of all like objects, for example things that are long and slender, things that are hollow, things that are blue, would all produce their own information fields. Thus, an object that is long and slender AND blue would be associated with, be linked to, a specific information field, a morphic field, shared by all long, slender and blue things. And the more there are the more powerful the information field. Words, phrases, books and other media like CDs and records also produce their own type of information field. And the electonic devices that bring information into the home produce fields as well - e.g., televisions, computers, iPads and cell phones. It was recently reported there are 7.3 billion active cell phones worldwide as of 2014. That would be one big honking information field! So, anyway, what we have here is a land line phone or cell phone the very presence of which, even though it’s not even turned ON, causes the listener to perceive the sound as worse than it actually is. Any guest in the room will also perceive the sound as worse than it actually is. The guest would also perceive the sound as improved after the phone has been treated. Now, you might ask, how can objects from various locations in the world combine to produce a field? And why does that field not attenuate over distance? The reason is that the Morphic Field is not bound to obey the inverse square law obeyed by electromgnetic or magnetic fields. The strength of a Morphic Field doesn’t decrease with distance. The strength of a Morphic Field is determined by the number of objects or words or patterns, etc. only and is the same strength everywhere. From Psychology Wiki - According to this concept, the morphic field underlies the formation and behavior of holons and morphic units, and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts and/or thoughts. The hypothesis says that a particular form belonging to a certain group which has already established its (collective) morphic field, will tune into that morphic field. The particular form will read the collective information through the process of morphic resonance, using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through morphic resonance, a feedback to the morphic field of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). |
There are no absolutes in audio. There is no absolute sound. That’s an old wives tale. There is no ideal sound. If you think you are hearing all of the music, all of the frequencies and all of the dynamic range that is actually encoded on a CD or LP you are mistaken. Badly mistaken. There are too many variables, the ones you know about and the ones you don’t know about, to make absolute statements about sound. That’s why advanced audiophiles rely on a range of terms to explain what we hear. As Noah Cross tells Jake Gittes at the Albacross Club in Chinatown, “You may think you know what’s going on, Mr. Gittes but, believe me, you don’t.” Climber 1 - Wow, this is great!! Standing on the top of Everest. Isn’t the view magnificent? Climber 2 - Yeah, it’s pretty good. Except we’re not on the top yet. We’re only at Base Camp. |
We observe, we describe. We do the same thing with picture quality, describe it using characteristics we can all understand. It’s a little silly to pretend we don’t understand each other. We describe picture quality thusly, Sharpness Noise Dynamic range Holographic image Image brightness Contrast Color accuracy Ghost images Artifacts |
It’s essentially a subjective hobby. We use “non technical” terms because it’s helpful in understanding and conveying the characteristics of sound. Terms like holographic image, glare, air, sweetness, articulation, slam, grainy, clean, open, pop. Words like Beauty, It’s how we communicate the characteristics of sound. It’s an art and a science. It’s two mints in one! 🤗 But science can be so dreary 🙁 |