Originally posted by dvd500

In the same breath couldnt you argue that Mathematical theory is 100% applied music?

[edit on 14-4-2007 by dvd500]

Of course!

I simply felt that making that point would have been rather redundant and insulting to the overall intelligence of the general ATS community.



*over and out*

[edit on 14-4-2007 by GENERAL EYES]

Once more, the fish within the bowl imagine that the entire universe can be described in terms of water, gravel and fish-flakes.

As I said earlier, math is the universal language of humans who believe that math is the universal language. And we believe that π will be understood and appreciated by any other "intelligent" species in the universe — so long as that species possesses strictly human intelligence.

This is a critically-biased assumption that has nothing whatsoever to do with the likely diversity of intelligence in the universe. There are millions of species right here on Earth that are far older and more successful than humankind, yet we cannot even begin to impress the significance of π on a dragonfly, or a desert tortoise, or even on our closest relative on earth, the chimpanzee.

Much to our human consternation, these stupid, stupid creatures don't even care about π... How dare they??

So, why do we believe that any non-human species is going to grasp it? "Well, if they have technology and communications and space travel and so on and so forth and blah, blah, blah, then they must have a grasp of mathematics."

Not at all. Quite wrong, indeed. An advanced alien species (and it must be advanced, or our "universal language" theory is useless) is just as likely to intuit technology as it is to rely on mathematics. An intelligent species — say, a million years ahead of us — may have completely forgotten those silly, slow, rudimentary counting games and formulas of the ancients, and instead employ some sort of naive, instantaneous knowledge without the labor of linear thought.

Why not? Judging from the diversity of life and intelligence and behavior on the Earth alone, we should be preparing ourselves for truly bizarre encounters with extraterrestrial species that have nothing whatsoever in common with our narrow little view of intelligence, and much less with our mathematics.

— Doc Velocity

Pythagoras developed many mathematical and musical theories, he did not see a differnece between the two, they were the same.
Fugues can be seen as mathematical logic expressed through music, it is only since the late 19th century that music became pleasure and not a discipline of scientific arts.
Johann Kepler saw the Universe as a Math in Motion, celestial Music.

Who is to say the movement of the planets and stars is Music
(vibration) at a level we simply dont understand yet.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by el fuego]

I agree that math would be most likely be the universal language. It's not human-centric actually....it's how humans have interpreted the universe with their limited senses. It's a shame that humans today cannot see the beauty of mathematics, even ancient civilizatizations had more respect and knowledge of it. Do you realize how old some of these theorems are? It's amazing how we still implement them today in modern science.
Not to down play music, which itself could possibily be an expression of mathematics as well.

Originally posted by Ashley_T
In ancient kabbalah it is taught that the world is based both on music and mathematics. There is a spiritual collaboration with the number 7 that also resonates in music..

7 colors of the rainbow, or 7 notes on a music scale..

This is nonsense, of course. Newton, when he first identitfied the different wavelengths of light, made a conscious choice to use 7 so it would fit with the harmonic nature of the musical scale. It's not an empirical fact and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Newton thought there should be 7 colours, then he could damn well make sure there was.

Music can never be a universal language for a number of reasons:

1) The emotional effect that any sound has is subjective. When Michael Bolton sings 'When a Man Loves a Woman', some people are carried off by the musical phrasing; I like any other music lover, scan the room for a water-tight container.

2) Musical resonance is affected by the medium it passed through. In a different atomosphere, or underwater, Gwen Stefani sounds like she is singing notes, and not just talking.

3) We have 5 senses, but a number of animals have different takes on these. I don't know about you, but I can't see the UV-sensitive colours that some parrots display. Bats use sonic-impulses for navigation, and blasting Beethoven at a bat can never express an idea or emotion, as they do not have the capacity to comprehend it.

I have a poor understanding of mathematics, and am willing to stand corrected on a the following, but my understanding is that, if you define the rules of mathematics, they hold empirically.

So, given a being of sufficient intelligence, the rules can be explained as self-consistent, enabling both sides to have a common language. This can then be passed on from the sufficiently intelligent being to those of their species in a indigenous form of communication.

Music, for the reasons above, can never transcend this barrier of creating a common base that is empirically testable.

I agree with Doc Velocity.

How can one say math is the universal language?

Well then, we can go ahead and say that Human words are the "universal language", because every number and mathematical concept is defined by and known through a word that is utilized to establish it.

Give me a number or a mathematical concept that has no name, and then I'll agree that "math is the universal language".

Another egocentric idea eaten up by the masses who don't think for themselves.

Our mathematics are primitive, and my idea of one divided by one, is two, not one.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by St Udio
~its a left brain dominance world, that's why 'math' is considered the universal language~

Exactly, but I'd say more: it's a left-brain dominated universe. The right brain can appreciate art in math, but it can't appreciate all things that are mathematical.

Mathematics is still superior.

Saying some harmonic sounds nice doesn't mean much, but if you can mathematically prove simple equations that map the course of planets rotating around stars, the intricacies of the Calculus describing physics, how black holes and quasars behave, and countless other things in Physics, geometry, and other basic sciences, the analysis of compression waves which music is made of and how it is perceived by the human brain seems almost insignificant.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
it's a left-brain dominated universe.

It's not a "universe" and there are places and things without brains.

It's a left brain dominated perception of the universe from the experience of Humanity.

Humanity's experience of Existence does not make it true for every thing.

Example, I am ambidextrious, therefore I am not left brain dominated, do I not Exist in the "universe"? And what is a Uni-verse?

The "universal language" is experience and it's all relative, but Existence lacking Human perception is almost a static place

[edit on 14-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

It's been awhile since I've logged in to ATS, but this post interests me and for the most part I agree with what Doc Velocity said.

If you think maths is the universal language you're not thinking outside the box - the only thing you have to do is concede to yourself that there are likely many things out there way beyond our understanding. It's not that hard!

Now that we're all agreed on that, isn't it possible that there's some super advanced species out there that finds our 'maths' so ridiculously irrelevant and pointless, that they have jokes about it.

I think too many people take it as a personal insult when something like this is disputed because they've invested a lot in it. Relax, and just think about the possibilities!

Oh and about music - I forget who said it, but yeah music is surely a bit too subjective to be a universal language? Even discounting how it sounds from person to person, certain songs make me feel different ways at different times. Even if I really like a song and I play it to death, it won't have the same effect after 56 plays that it once did. Also I will tend to associate songs with where I was or what I was doing when I heard them, giving them positive or negative connotations - another example of why it's so subjective.

Nice idea for a thread though the guy that started it!

Originally posted by dvd500
do
re
mi
fa
sol
la
ti

those are the main notes. i count 7 are there any other main notes...sharps and flats don't count cause they're not main notes.

I take it you haven't studied music theory or physics of sound then? Do Re Mi is a poor way to look at it, and also saying that sharps and flats don't count isn't correct either. You shouldn't think of main notes as if they are naturally existent and were discovered.

All music theory is based around maths, scales, chords, sequences, structures, you name it. Learning music theory is just a type of applied maths, that's why the deaf people could write it without hearing it, because they knew the maths of it so well that they just knew that it would sound correct.

To go even deeper, each note of a scale is physically based on maths as well. They are based on almost perfect recurring increments in how much the air is oscillating when you make a sound. So if you play a note 'A' on a piano, the air is vibrating at roughly 440hz (440 times per second). Then it goes up in certain amounts until you reach the next 'A', the octave higher, which is roughly 880hz.

So the number system is what is running underneath the surface of music, so music is based on maths.

It still amazes me how humans managed to originally discover the concept of numbers and mathematics, everything in science and everything else can be based on them, so maths is more of a universal language.

(Wahey, finally using my degree-in-progress to contribute to ATS!)


[edit on 14/4/2007 by malganis]

@OP

My guess is math is the universal language because you can describe the universe, forces of nature, including music with it.

Math can let us communicate with 'people' whom we have no idea about their culture, language etc. (e.g. through prime numbers)

Even human behaviour can be described with math.

Originally posted by David2012
Even human behaviour can be described with math.

Math can't be described without words and words can't be described without math, and human behaviour wouldn't be what it is without math and words to promulgate it. Even "numbers" are "words", they are a subset of "symbols", but even symbol is a word and has '6' letters.

There is no division of any thing and there is no "higher" than an other.

Math can be used to communicate the same as words can

[edit on 14-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

To agree with GE and the others insisting that music is fundamentally mathematically based:

I am a musician as well. Like GE I am terrible at math and am forced to, for the most part, play by ear.

But music comes down to mathatics in the end. The scales, the stops...all of it. Each culture has a 'defining' sound which is compressed into a scale or two. These scales are, when looked at, mathmatic in conception.

Besides, who is to say what other life forms see as music? Maybe our most obscure and amelodic avant-garde jazz is another life forms Bach, Pixies or Sleater-Kinney (depending on your sensebilities).

Originally posted by malganis
I take it you haven't studied music theory or physics of sound then? Do Re Mi is a poor way to look at it, and also saying that sharps and flats don't count isn't correct either. You shouldn't think of main notes as if they are naturally existent and were discovered.

[...]

(Wahey, finally using my degree-in-progress to contribute to ATS!)

Look to this post as a great example of the issue being discussed. Very well said my friend.

To add one thing: The 'main notes' to which another poster referred are different depending on your cultural tastes and norms. Those 'flats and sharps' are the main makeup of several cultures favored sound.

To assume that The Sound of Music was a good lesson in musical theory is...well it is something.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by dvd500
do
re
mi
fa
sol
la
ti

those are the main notes. i count 7 are there any other main notes...sharps and flats don't count cause they're not main notes.

everything about math an equation otherwise 2+2=5 see what happens when the right equations are not followed? even the definition of the word equation in the modern dictionary uses the word math or mathematics as an explanation so of course math is all about equations.

There's no such thing as a main notes. In the scale commonly used in Western countries, you have a the following notes:

A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G G# A

That's the A chromatic scale, going up by half-steps. These are only called "half" steps because that's how it was assigned under our naming system. Basically, "A" just represents a certain frequency of sound. You could put a note between C# and D and call it "note R" or something, and it would exist. It's just that most Western instruments couldn't play it without special tuning.

I think certain Eastern scales have quarter steps or something.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Johnmike]

right you are. 12 tone scale = chromatic scale. Excellent point on the 1/4 tone scale of eastern music as well (24 tones).

As a professional musician and math hobbyist I would say that music is math. Just a way of measuring vibration and seeing which formulas work and affect living things in generally predictable ways.


edit: math is music too... and coincidentally I have a soldering iron getting hot to upgrade EMG707 active pickups on my custom 7 string geetar from 9v to 18v of juice ... for those who care haha

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Jiffy]

Slow down guys...

I am no expert, but I think the meaning behind math being a universal language is centered around simple concepts like 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. These concepts can be easily illustrated and understood by nearly all human beings (the only intelligent life I know about here on Earth). In the beginning, we'll have to keep things simple and when we do make contact for the first time we're not going to immediately say a²+b²=c² because we'll have to work up to that. It's incredibly unlikely that a civilization which has evolved to a point of galactic exploration wouldn't know of these concepts already or at the very least be able to understand them with ease. Music and art certainly have their place - just not in the beginning. On a personal note, I can't wait to hear the symphonies of other life forms. Hopefully, I will have that opportunity in my lifetime.

Originally posted by malganis

Originally posted by dvd500
do
re
mi
fa
sol
la
ti

those are the main notes. i count 7 are there any other main notes...sharps and flats don't count cause they're not main notes.

I take it you haven't studied music theory or physics of sound then? Do Re Mi is a poor way to look at it, and also saying that sharps and flats don't count isn't correct either. You shouldn't think of main notes as if they are naturally existent and were discovered.

All music theory is based around maths, scales, chords, sequences, structures, you name it. Learning music theory is just a type of applied maths, that's why the deaf people could write it without hearing it, because they knew the maths of it so well that they just knew that it would sound correct.

To go even deeper, each note of a scale is physically based on maths as well. They are based on almost perfect recurring increments in how much the air is oscillating when you make a sound. So if you play a note 'A' on a piano, the air is vibrating at roughly 440hz (440 times per second). Then it goes up in certain amounts until you reach the next 'A', the octave higher, which is roughly 880hz.

So the number system is what is running underneath the surface of music, so music is based on maths.

It still amazes me how humans managed to originally discover the concept of numbers and mathematics, everything in science and everything else can be based on them, so maths is more of a universal language.

(Wahey, finally using my degree-in-progress to contribute to ATS!)


[edit on 14/4/2007 by malganis]

Actually I have taken music theory and again just like math in order to understand any mathematical theories problems or equation as simple as it is..what is the 1st thing we learn in school how to count to 10 which is the basics no? Music....in order to understand any music theories how scales work, or chords or A chromatic scale you got to learn your basics, the equivalent of 1-10 in math which is what? C D E F G A B isn't it? isn't that the 1st music lesson? like I said its the equivalent of 1-10 in math.

I guess my choice of word when i said main notes confused people. but what i meant is the basics notes of music.

Music is, I think, more universal in that anybody on Earth (and most likely other planets as well) can hum/whistle/sing a tune with absolutely no study or knowledge of music what-so-ever. The same cannot be said about math. Without some study/knowledge one cannot perform even the simplest of calculations. You have to learn at least the concept of numbers.

Music is more powerful, I think, because music is pure creation. I play a tune and that tune exists, at least for the duration of the performance, where it did not before. Math, on the other hand, is simply a system devised by man to label things (like music) and have a means of describing and communicating ideas. All you can create with math is more math.

As much as I don't like the idea, I think the only truly universal language is violence.
Everyone understands a boot to the head. There is no confusion in the communication. This is true even when crossing inter-species boundaries.

Originally posted by Jiffy
edit: math is music too... and coincidentally I have a soldering iron getting hot to upgrade EMG707 active pickups on my custom 7 string geetar from 9v to 18v of juice ... for those who care haha
[edit on 14-4-2007 by Jiffy]

I care. That there geetar is going to sound super-fat! And talk about signal strength! What kind of geetar is it, and do you use any compression with it?