Earth flatters now! When people are scandalized in their dogma or superstition they replicate by insults...
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 13 responses by mahgister
You are right Geoff morphic fields in the idea of Sheldrake dont reduce to maths...Maths dont explain them actually... But there is the possibility evident in maths for a universal field of information and that was my point...If there is an ideal universal field of information-memory then the idea of Sheldrake no more seems foolish at all, for me at least...My best. |
There exist a maths definition of potential information fields in number theory by Voronin theorem : (Read amazing corollary 3) If you linked Voronin theorem to the implicate order of David Bohm or to some quatum mechanics, you will see why Bohm does not thank of the Sheldrake idea s that they are "stupid" or irrational... S.C. Woon, "Riemann zeta function is a fractal" (preprint 06/94) "[We] infer three corollaries from Voronin’s theorem [on the ’universality’ of the Riemann zeta function]. The first is interesting, the second is a strange and amusing consequence, and the third is ludicrous and shocking (but a consequence nevertheless)." "Corollary 1 ("interesting") Riemann zeta function is a fractal." Woon’s innovation here is to devise analytic function f based on the zeta function itself (involving translations and rescalings), in order to show that zeta replicates its own behaviour infinitely often at all scales. "Since ao can be arbitrarily chosen, there are self-similarities at all scales. Therefore, Riemann zeta function is a fractal." He goes on to show that you can choose f to be based on the zeta function not only via translation and dilation, but also invovling rotation and reflection. The result is that we have self-similarities between discs at different scales and orientations." "Riemann zeta function is fractal in the sense that the Mandelbrot set is fractal (self-similarities between a region bounded by a closed loop C and other regions bounded by closed Cm’ of the same shape at smaller scales and/or orientations). The fractal property of zeta is not "infinitely recursive" as in Koch snowflake. Such infinite recursions in a function will render the function non-differentiable, whereas zeta is infinitely differentiable. So, the manifold of zeta function is not of fractal dimension." "All Dirichlet L-functions are also fractal. This follows from the remark following Voronin’s theorem in Voronin’s paper." "Corollary 2 ("strange and amusing") Riemann zeta function is a ’library’ of all possible smooth continuous line drawings in a plane." Imagine all the ways an analytic function can map a line segment, say the vertical diameter of |z| < 1/4, into the complex plane. Woon points out that every imaginable kind of shape (an outline Mickey Mouse is used as an example) can be drawn in this way. It then follows from the Universality Theorem that the zeta function’s behaviour on segments of Re[s] = 3/4 (or any other line between 1/2 and 1) can replicate any such shape. "Corollary 3 ("ludicrous and shocking") Riemann zeta function is a concrete "representation" of the giant book of theorems referred to by Paul Halmos." Woon explains that you can represent arbitrarily long Morse code messages as oscillating curves representing ’signals’. Every possible one of these messages is reproducible to within a workable accuracy by the zeta function. So the entire Encylopedia Britannica could be deduced as a Morse Code transmission encoded as a wave which was the image of a vertical segment of length 1/2 on Re[s] = 3/4 under the Riemann zeta function. "So... the entire human knowledge are already encoded in zeta function." "Hence, Riemann zeta function is probably one of the most remarkable functions because it is a concrete "representation" (in group theory sense) of "the God’s giant book of theorems" that Paul Halmost spoke of - all possible theorems and texts are already encoded in some form in Riemann zeta function, and repeated infinitely many times. Although a white noise function and an infinite sequence of random digits are also concrete "representations", Riemann zeta function is not white noise or random but well-defined. Alternatively, from the point of view of information theory, even though Riemann zeta function is well-defined, its mappings in the right half of the critical strip are random enough to encode arbitrary large amount of information - the "entropy" of its mapping is infinite. Example This article is also encoded somewhere in Riemann zeta function as it is being written!" S.C. Woon, "Fractals of the Julia and Mandelbrot sets of the Riemann zeta function" (preprint 12/98) "Computations of the Julia and Mandelbrot sets of the Riemann zeta function and observations of their properties are made. In the appendix section, a corollary of Voronin’s theorem is derived and a scale-invariant equation for the bounds in Goldbach conjecture is conjectured." |
Credibility lost! My god for what? Information is not one of the most if not the most central concept in science now? Ok perhaps it is because Rupert Sheldrake is a maverick? For the likes of Dawkins without doubt! But this is not my crowd... And credibility is always linked to a specific affinity crowd, except for universally recognised geniuses or classics and even for these there is controversy about many... |
The definition of words in a dictionary gives the prosaic, collectively accepted meanings of a word; the poetic sense of a word is not reducible to the prosaic sense in the dictionary it needs the context of the actual poem for his definition and the concrete experience of one reader of this poem... In the same manner the listening audiophile experience is not reducible to nuts and bolts, to a prosaic reducibility to parts and components... In the experience there is a continuous participation of the ears-brain-consciousness in a specific very complex embedding fields of the audio components: a qualitative one, a material one, an acoustical one, an electro-magnetic one... How do you reduce all that to numbers? «There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy » William S. |
It is a bit philosophically " naïve" to think that audio components has a sound of their own out of the continuous participating acoustic space of a room and that we can predict how they will sound without the specifics of any particular room and out of any particular electrical grid, and out of any resonant particularities of the audio grid and room... Each component has his own particularity electronically speaking, but the end result of all the system in a particular complex embeddings is the truth of the system for the ears not his design only.... Example: an ordinary audio system in a perfect acoustical environment will be better than a TOTL in a poor room, without acoustical treatment, nor vibrations controls, with a noisy electrical grid, is it not evident? P.S. salutations to Geoffkait , I think I miss Glupson also... :) |