Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

reply to post by ImaFungi


okay, i can go with that.

It is just that there are so many variables, and inconsistencies, that there appears to be no coherent pattern to the frequency

now, if we look back at the OP of the current thread, we will see two types of systems being presented.

the first one, which is analogous to the text that i have quoted above, is the well-tempered instrument....or the piano tuning with the white background. because of the tuning that has been applied to the system, there are states within the system which must be muted or damped, elsewise, they cause "variables and inconsistencies" which lead to decoherence. or, if i may go further, there are 12 chromatic tunings that are all fighting for the "state" of the piano. this, unfortunately, is the model that quantum theory has to offer us.

on the other hand, we have the trumpeter with a stable tone. unconflicted. his stability is self-reinforcing...almost as though the more 'in-tune' he is, the more 'in-tune' he gets. this is the model of coherence that is offered by chaos theory, which is the tuning on the red background.

now, before you go telling me that the stable trumpeter is not chaotic.....

....i want you to reconsider what i was telling you during our PM exchange. a chaotic eigenstate brings order into a system which would otherwise be defined only as noise. it is the trumpeter which is corralling all of that randomness into a structured form. and, as you have said about "normal standard deviations", the system is ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY and INHERENTLY noisy, even though there is structure applied to it from "above".

and please carefully consider what i am trying to say by using the word "above". like a Flock, rather than a gaggle.

(i could go on and on talking about our trumpet system in terms of entropy. but i will leave it there for now.)

reply to post by ImaFungi

What do you think is the most primal and real expression of what exists?

chaos. ordered noise. at every level. such to the extent that events in our own lives that appear to be random or noisy are, in fact, ordered by a chaotic system which we cannot see because we are inside of it.

this is the long sought after solution to the problem of entangled particles, where i told you that you are right, but you dont know WHY you are right.... and then you got mad at me.

reply to post by ImaFungi

What are the concepts you have used that do not fit under the concepts of "order, chaos, noise, entropy"?

resonance
consonance
dissonance
eigenstate
potential well
transition state
critical point
top-down vs. bottom-up
uncertainty
etc.
etc.

...and i didnt say they "do not fit under". i said that in the conversations we have been having, i have not limited myself to those four words. as you can see, it takes an understanding of a great many concepts to understand both chaos theory and quantum theory individually, and then to put them together and compare/contrast and attempt to come up with a reason why quantum theory has fallen short, particularly in regard to consciousness.

i have given all of the information necessary to come to that conclusion independently....
....or at least, i thought i had.

Originally posted by tgidkp

chaos. ordered noise. at every level. such to the extent that events in our own lives that appear to be random or noisy are, in fact, ordered by a chaotic system which we cannot see because we are inside of it.

this is the long sought after solution to the problem of entangled particles, where i told you that you are right, but you dont know WHY you are right.... and then you got mad at me.

So chaos is the supreme manifestation of all that exists, it is the backdrop and the somethingness, it is the ultimate, the totality of totality from before the beginning till after the furthest end, will be an expression of chaos; but within that chaos, chaos interacting with chaos, order can be created? And so order will be defined then as? What is the difference between order and chaos? If chaos is the ultimate, and what primally exists what is going on when chaos turns to order, what does that mean? what does order mean?

What is the relevance of saying our lives are ordered by a chaotic system? What does that mean to you? What is not ordered by a chaotic system?

And now since ive waited so long for this answer, can you further explain how this relates to your understanding and envision of the phenomenon or pseudo phenomenon of entangled particles?

Originally posted by tgidkp

i have given all of the information necessary to come to that conclusion independently....
....or at least, i thought i had.

Yes you give a lot of information but you dont really say much. No scientist or physicist has ever claimed they understood how consciousness works so we have all come to that conclusion. Do you have any theories on how it might work? What do you think their theories are missing?

reply to post by ImaFungi


no. i cannot.

i am going to go play with my cat now.

reply to post by tgidkp


I was giving the example of the trumpeter as an analogy to the healthy heart beat. Which would then equal a note on the piano. A perfect in pitch frequency of a mass vibrating air. Why is the trumpets frequency chaos, while the piano is not? are you saying because there are more variables of the human body involved in sustaining the trumpet note, while the piano, there is a stable structure, the piano, which mechanically and perfectly sustains it?

And so what you mean by structure and order applied from above, you are implying the need of a mind or intelligence? To create order from chaos? Is this what this has all been about but youve been afraid to come out and say it?

reply to post by tgidkp


You dont have to get so butthurt all the time. We both want to know the truth. I write a lot of replies to you, you single out one sentence, and reply to it. I ask more questions about that, and then you condescendingly and consistently get mad at me for not understanding what you mean. From my perspective you seem to think you have the truth of reality figured out. That is to say, truth exists exactly as it is in reality and the universe, and in your head, you have a perfect model/map/understanding/reflection of what the universe is and the way it works. As a seeker of that information, I thought it worthwhile in discussing with you, to try and figure out what you think the universe is, what you have discovered about the universe. But I cant help but feel you are very vague, mysterious, and drawn out with explaining your model and understanding. Like I said no hard feelings, this is not a personal or emotional thing for me, I am only interested in knowing and understanding and thinking about truth, it is way larger then me and my ego. Have fun playing with your pussy cat and maybe we can continue our quest later.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tgidkp

i have given all of the information necessary to come to that conclusion independently....
....or at least, i thought i had.

Yes you give a lot of information but you dont really say much. No scientist or physicist has ever claimed they understood how consciousness works so we have all come to that conclusion. Do you have any theories on how it might work? What do you think their theories are missing?

Have you ever heard of Willlobrook State School, it was a facility, that managed often mentally disabled individuals. Willowbrook was an example of a Materialist Psychiatric facility run under the auspice's of such models as prescribed by Pavlov and Skinner (as an example). today

Today in the United States there was such a facility that operated in private back in 2008. This is when due to law suits because f the same type of behavior inherent in Willowbrook it was shut down. The problem with materialism is that it has no real grasp of consciousness and in reality there is really no reason to believe it ever will.

I have worked in Psychiatric facilities and the whole idea of applying behavioral models to treatment, today is literally a joke.

One cannot in the literal sense train a schizophrenic to be normal.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Yes, so do you think mental disorders exist? And do you think they are bad, and not normal? Do you think they should not be tried to be made normal? If a person with a mental disorder cannot live life what should be done? If they can, who cares? Looking at this from a perspective of natural selection and evolution, if schizophrenia is an advantage everyone should want it, and we would be reproducing with people that have it so that every one can have it. Yea i realize its more likely not genetic, wow, I really dont get your point, or why you brought this up, but... nice.

reply to post by ImaFungi


My point is simple consciousness cannot be defined in the context of materialism. I that were the case one could in a practical sense train a person with a psychotic disorder to be normal. That was in effect the failure of materialism, in earnest, in relation to human consciousness.

Take for example the issue of torture as a way to extract information as well as in respect to the matter of the Stanford Prison experiments?? There is simply a Qualia that goes beyond the materialist philosophy.

If one cannot train a person who is psychotic to be normal then there is something beyond common knowledge of conscious experiences, that is driving that person to remain psychotic. In other words it is fundamentally reasonable to conclude the materialism lacks the sophistication to explain consciousness from every frame of reference.

In other words the condition is beyond the explanation of the materialist ideal because that ideal is way to simple.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


hm. Why is impossible that there are physical/material reasons as to why a person has a mental disorder? Material things can be broken beyond repair, so I dont know how your argument is in your favor.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Kashai

 

hm. Why is impossible that there are physical/material reasons as to why a person has a mental disorder? Material things can be broken beyond repair, so I dont know how your argument is in your favor.

Why are you assuming disrepair? What about coping mechanisms? Again the matter in relation to qualia comes into perspective. Under the correct stress every last one of us could develop a psychotic disorder. Developing new neural connections actually can circumvent a psychotic disorder but the conditions in such cases needs to be ideal.

Material things can be broken beyond repair in a classical sense.

In relation to repairing them in a quantum sense retrocausality presents that it is perfectly possible under the correct circumstances.

While in the context of classical thinking retrocausality is not apparent in nature, it obviously is apparent.

In context you are suggesting that the universe can be explained in three dimensions with some interaction with the 4th. Why are you assuming that given that. in relation humans, are only capable of experiencing reality in regards to internal representations?

I mean are you actually suggesting that our internal representations of reality are absolute??

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


You said material explanations cannot explain consciousness, because people with mental disorders could not be cured by materialist means. Then I said, that doesnt mean consciousness is not a materialist phenomenon because material things can be broken beyond repair. Then you said, why would I think consciousness is beyond repair, so I must say, because in that scenario you said we could not repair it. In your opinion if consciousness is not material phenomenon, how could a mental disorder possibly be cured by immaterial means? What immaterial means could cure the immaterial consciousness? Please can you give me one idea, explanation, theory, hypothesis?

Now we will get into semantics. I dont know what is meant by materialist. I dont know what is immaterial, I dont know what is physical or non physical. Is energy non physical? This is all semantics and definitions of words. Imo everything that exists, exists. The concept of material and non material is meaningless imo, because I personally view the term material to be 'that which exists'. Everything which can possible, and which does exists. Materially exists. There is a quantity to it, and a quality, it is something, it can be known, and understood, and its affects can be seen, it itself is present, in existence, it is. So I dont think there is anything special about the words material and immaterial, I just think everything that exists exists. Can you give me an example of something that you think is immaterial?

reply to post by ImaFungi


In relation to psychosis and with respect to quality something exist that has the potential of a quality. This of course being the fact one cannot train a psychotic person to be normal. If there were not an issue with this matter then it would be possible to train a psychotic person to be normal.

As you have expressed fundamentally quality is an aspect of structure and in regards to human consciousness, quality goes beyond materialist philosophy.

It is actually very simply to understand, qualia beyond the materialist ideal presents a relationship of consciousness to reality that is beyond materialism.

Any thoughts?

In other words it is very possible that you did not get the memo.

Ima do you not feel that a Unified Field Theory should be applicable to all potentials before it is classified as an absolute?

reply to post by ImaFungi

you are implying the need of a mind or intelligence? To create order from chaos? Is this what this has all been about but youve been afraid to come out and say it?

i did not invent the need for anything. it was your stupid example. the trumpeter (above) was at cause on the determining variables (below) of the stable pitch. i gave you a much better example of a heartbeat. if you wish to call it a mind, then i think that is appropriate. however, this is not something i have been "implying a need for". it is something that exists. i gave you evidence. what the hell more do you want from me?

afraid to say it? no. i thought i was fairly clear from the start that my position was in favor of finding a viable and reasonable model for consciousness. did you miss the boat on that one too?

yes, indeed you have posed a lot of questions. and i have spent a lot of time running around in circles addressing issues that you could figure out for yourself on wiki. dont understand "chaos theory"? dont blame me: wiki. dont understand "long term correlation"? wiki. dont understand the definition of "random" or "noise"? wiki. dont agree that the digits of pi are, by that definition, random? wiki.

have you spent any time at all independently researching these topics?

Yes you give a lot of information but you dont really say much.

wow. just wow.

in response to that, i will leave you with a recent unsolicited compliment paid to me by our mutual acquaintance, greylorn:

A teacher usually can convey no more than 10% of his aggregate understanding. I'm looking for the 90% you're holding back. Where can I find your papers, perhaps even your books?

i will run no more circles for you, ima.

reply to post by tgidkp


I really dont care about the personal bickering or emotional frustration or ego. This is a very raw activity to me. There is truth, I want to know it, you want to know, you think you know it, I want to know what you think you know. There is nothing else to it. You can think your better then me, you can think you know more, you can think you are impressive, I dont care about that. As a person who wants to try and accurately harness truth in my mind, I only want to get a glimpse of what you have been able to put together. I have only ever ( the only thing I have written to you of any value) questioned the things you were saying, because I didnt see the connection you saw between them and reality. I only have asked the questions to further understand what you think you have discovered as truth. I said the semi rude statement; you have written a lot but you havent really said anything, because from my perspective, you have written a lot, ( and I admit it could be much due to my error) but from the first thread and response I have read from you till this last one, I dont know if I had made great progress with comprehending how what you have been saying relates to the reality we inhabit.

reply to post by ImaFungi


2 trumpeters playing A out of sync with each other is noise.
100 trumpeters playing A out of sync with each other is still noise.
100 trumpeters playing A so loudly that their trumpets break is chaos.
A trumpeter becoming winded and stops playing is entropy.
The butterfly effect is the person who closed the door of the building causing the acoustics to become trapped.
The tipping point is the moment the trumpets begin to break.
Cracks in the trumpets are fractals.
Part of the trumpet becoming a piece is quantization.

All of the above is order.

more

The rate at which the air carries the sound/force is time.
The ears in the room giving the players the sense of sound is awareness.
If a player chooses not to focus on the sound he uses his consciousness to make his mind not focus on the sound that his ears are aware of.

All I can think of for now.