or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 88  

post #1306 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or, or some reason, ignorant of colloquial uses of the word "animal".
Of course an octopus is an animal, taxonomically. But words carry different meanings, and different implications, in conversational use. This is in addition to their strict and literal usage within the sciences. The "stung by an animal" anecdote was meant to illustrate this: Even though all insects are a part of animalia, conversationally we will segregate them.
So the fundamental question of "are octopuses animals?" can have multiple answers which are all fully and rigorously correct, and range from "yes" to "no".
If the question is, "Taxonomically, are octopuses animals?" the answer will be unambiguously "yes", and any other answer is wrong.
However, if the question is, "In American English regional idioms, are octopuses animals?" the answers may have to be more nuanced, circumstantial, and shading towards "maybe".

 

Maybe I'm just ignorant because I've been nose deep in encyclopedias since I learned to read and that's where all my definitions come from...

 

Seriously though, just because "stung by an animal" is an unusual phrase to hear doesn't actually have to imply anything about the definitions of any of the words in phrase.  It's just an unusual phrase because most things that sting people in America (and thus are spoken of in American English) are also bugs/insects of some variety.

 

Weren't you the one telling Tilpo that something he said was grammatically correct but immediately marked him as a non-native speaker because it was so uncommon?  This is the same thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Also, I'm reminded of another distinction that bugs (speaking of insects..) me: calling the big bang a theory of the universe's coming into existence. That's actually not true. It explains why the universe started expanding, but it doesn't account for the pinpoint of condensed reality that was there at time zero. In this sense it doesn't rival creation theories, because it does not account for the something rather than nothing. Something was already there when it "banged."

 

Well the math gets heavy.  Time as we know it didn't even exist "before" the big bang and there are finite but unbounded models of time that suggests there never was a beginning.

 

Then there's also your definition of 'nothing' and 'something'.  It would appear that it is inevitable a universe appear out of the nothing-ist nothing we know of, the quantum foam, because it is inherently unstable.  Some people stay that still counts as 'something' but if the quantum foam counts as 'something' then 'nothing' is something we've never observed and know nothing about.  Should one be allowed to postulate something like that as an alternative to what we do know of?

post #1307 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Also, I'm reminded of another distinction that bugs (speaking of insects..) me: calling the big bang a theory of the universe's coming into existence. That's actually not true. It explains why the universe started expanding, but it doesn't account for the pinpoint of condensed reality that was there at time zero. In this sense it doesn't rival creation theories, because it does not account for the something rather than nothing. Something was already there when it "banged."

 

Also, is there a creation myth that actually starts from nothing?  I've never heard of one that explains where the deity(s) and/or primordial-chaos-equivalent came from...

post #1308 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Weren't you the one telling Tilpo that something he said was grammatically correct but immediately marked him as a non-native speaker because it was so uncommon?  This is the same thing.

No, that wasn't me. But it's true that usage is a way that we distinguish insiders from outsiders, whether geographically (native/nonnative speakers, from our region or another region) or by interest and expertise. "I got stung by an animal" is not an incorrect phrase (as long as it is true the speaker had been stung), but it is an unusual usage.

In similar ways, we can distinguish people inside and outside of our group of headphone enthusiasts by seeing how people use words like "earbud". Insiders use "earbud" specifically to mean external earpieces that rest on the outer ear. Outsiders use it to mean any earpiece small enough to fit on or in the ear without support, encompassing earbuds (specialist's usage) and IEMs.
post #1309 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

Then there's also your definition of 'nothing' and 'something'.  It would appear that it is inevitable a universe appear out of the nothing-ist nothing we know of, the quantum foam, because it is inherently unstable.  Some people stay that still counts as 'something' but if the quantum foam counts as 'something' then 'nothing' is something we've never observed and know nothing about.  Should one be allowed to postulate something like that as an alternative to what we do know of?

 

Two things:

 

1. There is temporally prior and logically prior. Obviously there is no "before" time in a temporal sense, but logically one can speak of a "before" time in terms of causal relationships. There are two options: either posit a first cause, or posit an infinite regression. Edit: Actually there is a third in an un-caused 

 

2. Should one be allowed to postulate something like that as an alternative to what we do know of? First, I strong disagree that "nothing" is something we "don't know." In fact negation underlies the entirety of language and mathematics. You're trying to approach "nothing" from the standpoint of it being a thing, but that's just it, nothing is "no thing." Secondly, I would say the answer to the question itself regardless is yes.

 

"Nothing" is tricky, because as soon as we start trying to conceptualize nothing, we by necessity must make it a something. We've had this kind of discussion before, as I seem to recall. I think we always have a disconnection because you're approaching this from a materialist / physics standpoint, and I'm approaching it from a mathematics / logic standpoint. However it goes back to the above point: either there is a point at which one says "something came from nothing," or one says there was always something, ie. an absolute ground or an infinite regress. It's the difference between speaking of infinity in the sense that within our universe, one cannot escape or exhaust it (like an imaginary 2D being on the surface of a sphere) and speaking of absolute infinity, ie. what "space" that sphere occupies. On one level it makes little sense to speak of what is outside of the known universe insofar as the universe is what is. However one can speak of it from a logical standpoint, ie. that a boundary is only a boundary insofar as it has an inside and outside.

 

Obviously language has its limitations. However a concept like "nothing" is known not by the senses directly, but as a logical necessity.

 

Deja vu lol. I think we're about as opposite as can be insofar as our perspectives go. : P


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/28/12 at 7:14am
post #1310 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

Also, is there a creation myth that actually starts from nothing?  I've never heard of one that explains where the deity(s) and/or primordial-chaos-equivalent came from...

 

I'm a little scatterbrained this morning, but here's the basic idea:

 

Orthodox Christianity is closest to what you're saying, as it advocated creation ex nihilo, ie. God created the material universe out of nothing. God however is pure act / pure will and was always there as the absolute ground, ie. uncaused. As soon as you say that God was caused by something else, then you fall into infinite regression because that necessitates a logical prior. There always has to be a factor there in an account of creation, the "first cause," otherwise one must allow for the universe to just appear out of nothing suddenly with no cause. The importance of creation "ex nihilo" for Orthodoxy is not to insist that there was once nothing, not even God (though God isn't a "thing" in the strict sense), but rather to say that God was the this first cause. Prior to this doctrine, it was widely accepted that God organized what was already there: ie. primordial chaos. The difficulty there however is that by positing something alongside God, then God is no longer logically prior, and you have to account for some absolute ground to account for both God and the primordial chaos.

 

In an areligious sense, one has to similarly stop at a point and say that it was the absolute ground which was uncaused and had always been there, whether that's quantum foam or whathaveyou. The two alternatives are either an infinite regression or the claim that the universe suddenly came into existence uncaused.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/28/12 at 7:16am
post #1311 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

No, that wasn't me. But it's true that usage is a way that we distinguish insiders from outsiders, whether geographically (native/nonnative speakers, from our region or another region) or by interest and expertise. "I got stung by an animal" is not an incorrect phrase (as long as it is true the speaker had been stung), but it is an unusual usage.
In similar ways, we can distinguish people inside and outside of our group of headphone enthusiasts by seeing how people use words like "earbud". Insiders use "earbud" specifically to mean external earpieces that rest on the outer ear. Outsiders use it to mean any earpiece small enough to fit on or in the ear without support, encompassing earbuds (specialist's usage) and IEMs.

 

Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you or something.  It's just that kind of thing really gets on my nerves.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

There are two options: either posit a first cause, or posit an infinite regression.

 

I don't think that's actually true.  Like I said, time could be finite but unbounded.  I don't claim that's the way the universe actually is, or that I even understand the math all that well, but it is a possibility.

 

That seems pretty mathematical to me.  I mean, if you boil it down to the essentials all of science works towards describing reality with mathematical models and like in that one xkcd comic I posted last time, physics is the closest to pure math.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

2. Should one be allowed to postulate something like that as an alternative to what we do know of? First, I strong disagree that "nothing" is something we "don't know." In fact negation underlies the entirety of language and mathematics. You're trying to approach "nothing" from the standpoint of it being a thing, but that's just it, nothing is "no thing." Secondly, I would say the answer to the question itself regardless is yes.

 

"Nothing" is tricky, because as soon as we start trying to conceptualize nothing, we by necessity must make it a something. We've had this kind of discussion before, as I seem to recall. I think we always have a disconnection because you're approaching this from a materialist / physics standpoint, and I'm approaching it from a mathematics / logic standpoint. However it goes back to the above point: either there is a point at which one says "something came from nothing," or one says there was always something, ie. the infinite regress. It's the difference between speaking of infinity in the sense that within our universe, one cannot escape or exhaust it (like an imaginary 2D being on the surface of a sphere) and speaking of absolute infinity, ie. what "space" that sphere occupies. On one level it makes little sense to speak of what is outside of the known universe insofar as the universe is what is. However one can speak of it from a logical standpoint, ie. that a boundary is only a boundary insofar as it has an inside and outside.

 

Obviously language has its limitations. However a concept like "nothing" is known not by the senses directly, but as a logical necessity.

 

Deja vu lol. I think we're about as opposite as can be insofar as our perspectives go. : P

 

I guess I should rephrase that part.  Sure you can postulate it.  Question everything.  It's just that I don't think anyone is obliged to take something seriously until there's evidence for it.

 

Anyway, past that clarification, I'd say that just because a concept exists doesn't mean it can or does manifest.  I'm guessing that's ass-backwards from your POV but I don't know all the nuances of Platonism nor you're specific variety/flavor/is-there-a-word-for-this.  Basically I'm saying because we've never found somewhere that didn't have "something" in it we've never found "nothing".  Is that treating "nothing" as a thing?  If it is then I really have no idea how to approach this issue.

 

I'm not really sure how you separate logic and math from physics though.  (The "materialism" is irrelevant unless you define 'immaterial" as 'things which exist but can never be demonstrated' or something silly like that.)  Logic and math are great.  It's just that they only give you accurate conclusions if you feed them accurate premisses and I don't know where you're going to get accurate premises about reality without observing it very carefully via experiment.

 

I think I could make a pretty good argument showing that '"nothing" is a logical necessity because of negation' is just an artifact of the simplified and abstract way we think of such things.  It doesn't really matter though.  Either way, no matter how many hairs we split, this whole question just comes down to "Why aren't things different?"

 

That's a very good question.  It's just that no amount of just sitting around and thinking will demonstrate the right answer.  You might find it, but you'll never really know it's the right one until you test it.  Of course no matter how many answers are found someone will most likely be able to ask why the latest one answer isn't different.

 

I'm not a theoretical physicist but from my understanding of the current evidence the only thing that's rock solid is that the big bang happened and can be modeled back to near Planck time where the equations break down and a quantum theory of gravity is likely needed to make the model work.  I'm not wedded to any of proposed hypotheses since I don't understand all the details.  I'm just trying to say that those are the paths more likely to figure stuff out.  If you don't come back and reference reality again at some point you can make endless numbers of models which are self consistent and consistent with all previous data.  That's what string theory seems to be turning into but at least they're trying to come up with a way to test it.

 

None of this is meant to dis philosophy either.  I'm running shot on time but I think that philosophy is a good way to think about stuff from new angles and often figure out which questions are worth asking in the first place.

post #1312 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

I'm a little scatterbrained this morning, but here's the basic idea:

 

Orthodox Christianity is closest to what you're saying, as it advocated creation ex nihilo, ie. God created the material universe out of nothing. God however is pure act / pure will and was always there as the absolute ground, ie. uncaused. As soon as you say that God was caused by something else, then you fall into infinite regression because that necessitates a logical prior. There always has to be a factor there in an account of creation, the "first cause," otherwise one must allow for the universe to just appear out of nothing suddenly with no cause. The importance of creation "ex nihilo" for Orthodoxy is not to insist that there was once nothing, not even God (though God isn't a "thing" in the strict sense), but rather to say that God was the this first cause. Prior to this doctrine, it was widely accepted that God organized what was already there: ie. primordial chaos. The difficulty there however is that by positing something alongside God, then God is no longer logically prior, and you have to account for some absolute ground to account for both God and the primordial chaos.

 

In an areligious sense, one has to similarly stop at a point and say that it was the absolute ground which was uncaused and had always been there, whether that's quantum foam or whathaveyou. The two alternatives are either an infinite regression or the claim that the universe suddenly came into existence uncaused.

 

Well then we mostly agree on those facts.

 

My point was that if the dichotomy was true then either religious or non would have either an un-caused cause or an infinite regression and that religion can't just say they're allowed one of those as an exception 'cuz it's magic.  Sometimes I see that argument.  The FSM or whatever is allowed to be eternal but nothing else is.

post #1313 of 21760
@DF, I didn't see any mention of your birthday prior to the wishes, and if you did, I'm sorry that I missed it. With that out of the way, happy birthday!

EDIT: but judging from where the first wish came from I'm thinking it's from another network.
Edited by jgray91 - 9/28/12 at 9:10am
post #1314 of 21760

LFF just posted a ridiculously positive review of the Frogbeats C4... normally I tend to be skeptical of reviews like this, but this is LFF. At the same time, however, he does have a history of glossing over details when he gets enthusiastic about things, even when the product is indeed excellent.

 

Oh, and happy birthday DF!


Edited by tomscy2000 - 9/28/12 at 10:08am
post #1315 of 21760
I find it interesting how custom IEM makers seem to be congregating around a 3-way 4-driver configuration for their neutral-EQ product, which then tends to be near-TOTL, subsidiary only to one designed to have emphasized bass.

I wonder how similar driver complements and other details are as well. Since there are a limited number of BA manufacturers selling to EOMs, and only a few specific models that are popular, I wouldn't be surprised if the innards are more alike than different, down to the tube filters used.
post #1316 of 21760
Back when I decided to purchase my UHA-4, it's because of the crossfeed. Now that I have got it for a round a month and have used it, i don't find the change that big, or even if there's any change at all in the songs I listen to. But then I wonder if it's the genre that's somehow making me not hear anything change? Is it? Or is the crossfeed really isn't that 'powerful'?
post #1317 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post

Back when I decided to purchase my UHA-4, it's because of the crossfeed. Now that I have got it for a round a month and have used it, i don't find the change that big, or even if there's any change at all in the songs I listen to. But then I wonder if it's the genre that's somehow making me not hear anything change? Is it? Or is the crossfeed really isn't that 'powerful'?


Cross-feed is suppose to be more subtle but it should be noticeable. Generally I notice the vocals being shifted towards the center and bass slightly increasing. On old tracks where the channels are sevearly shifted to the left and right its a night and day difference. Try and listen to "Love is Like a Heat Wave" from Martha and the vandellas and enable it. You will know what I mean :).

post #1318 of 21760
So I took a search in YouTube, found one and OMG. The UHA-4's crossfeed does help to centre the vocals a bit but it's quite subtle. Most apparent at the point of switching it on then off. Good song, but it's not something I'm in to right now. Probably in another time perhaps? Thanks lee.

Okay then it really depends on the song then. It's just the modern songs seem to be made for headphones and older songs seems more for speakers. Is this a correct assumption?
post #1319 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I'm not really sure how you separate logic and math from physics though.  (The "materialism" is irrelevant unless you define 'immaterial" as 'things which exist but can never be demonstrated' or something silly like that.)  Logic and math are great.  It's just that they only give you accurate conclusions if you feed them accurate premisses and I don't know where you're going to get accurate premises about reality without observing it very carefully via experiment.

 

I'm not separating logic and math from physics, but rather saying that the disciplines don't always agree on how to approach certain concepts. There's actually quite a bit of disagreement among 'strict' mathematicians and physicists in that sense, even though physics uses mathematics.

 

I really don't want to keep splitting hairs, because it's just getting obtuse and turning into arguing for the sake of it. This is all stuff we're argued about in the past, besides. However the "accurate premises about reality through observations" is itself based on an a priori acceptance of empirical data. Nothing wrong with that. However it's not entirely clear whether logic and mathematics depends on empirical observation. In fact, from a rationalist standpoint, mathematics and logic are said to be completely independent from any particular "reality" in that sense, ie. indicative of the ideal. There are plenty of mathematical concepts which aren't "real" in that sense. Similarly, there's a lot in theoretical physics which is demonstrated mathematically but can't actually be observed. Yes, I realize one can turn right around and counter by saying that it could be observed in theory, even if we don't have the means to at the moment. But then one could counter-counter by pointing out what an anthropocentric view that is and raise the question of whether things can exist without our ever observing them, ie. higher dimensions which would be beyond our ability to ever know empirically due to our being three-dimensional creatures but that could still be demonstrated mathematically. And on and on, back and forth.

 

Anyway, point being, I'm not separating math from physics, but rather saying that there's a lot in math that has no real impact or relevance to physics. Number theory, for instance. Talk to a mathematician who is into the philosophy of mathematics and number theory, and he or she most likely wont give a damn about whether something can be demonstrated scientifically, so long as it can be logically demonstrated.

post #1320 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post

Back when I decided to purchase my UHA-4, it's because of the crossfeed. Now that I have got it for a round a month and have used it, i don't find the change that big, or even if there's any change at all in the songs I listen to. But then I wonder if it's the genre that's somehow making me not hear anything change? Is it? Or is the crossfeed really isn't that 'powerful'?

 

The UHA-4's crossfeed is pretty subtle.  I usually only notice it when I forget to turn it on because I hear a hard pan or something like that.  I found a pretty aggressive crossfeed setting in Rockbox that I like because it move the soundstage forward quite a bit but it beats the battery to death.

 

Try listening for the cymbals.  In pretty much all modern rock/metal (and most pop/jpop I remember) they spread them out to the extreme right and left so that they're pretty much all the way on either side of my head, almost all the way off to the side..  A hard pan on something with good forward projection or a wide soundstage can often sound even weirder and more fatiguing.   It's like I'm facing a brick wall, edge on, and someone to the front and side of me is yelling into one ear.

 

 

   |
   |
  0|
   |
   X

 

I'm the X, facing up towards the wall and I can very clearly hear the 0 in front and to the left but I don't hear anything that I should normally hear in my right ear at the same time to balance it out..  Try it in a doorway or something., the less reflective the surroundings the better.  You could try and find a wall and door frame separating two rooms that have different noisy things going on in each one of them.  Something like a crowd of people in one and machinery/mechanical sounds in the other.  One loud and one quiet will work too.  A doorway between an noisy indoor crowd and outdoors where no one's on the street/in the parking lot because they're all inside partying is a good test too.

 

If those don't bother you then you probably don't need crossfeed.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2