Tastes in Music

Jul 9, 2005 at 6:47 PM Post #16 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Julz
I think it's that ...uhmm... god is vibrational matter that controls the perceptual functioning energy of classical music...


Next question: Is there any proof for this "God is vibrations" theory?

Of course, as soon as a mod stumbles into this one and reads it, this thread is toast based on what's already been said. Naturally, I'd toast it too, but for different reasons.
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 6:58 PM Post #17 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda
Couple of questions since I didn't fully understand your post:

You say that the non-material universe consists of quantum waves and is placed outside the realms of space and time. Being a real laymen I thought waves in quantum physics provide you with information in regards to its probability at a certain position. Also, if you look at the Schrödinger equation, space and time are actually involved, so I'm a bit confused here.

Further, you say that music is a manifestation of this non-discrete but continous world but I thought sound is nothing more than air particles moving back and forth, which is quite discrete in my opinion. However, for the time being, let's say it's non-discrete since it does behave as a wave. Now if you say that by listening to music, we can communicate with the universe (let's not use God due to forum rules), then how are sound waves different from let's say electromagnetic waves which we encounter everyday, that is light, which I'd personally categorize under "everyday sensory experience of the material world".

Moreover, can't everything be considered a wave according to the wave-particle dualism? Electrons for instance, quite discrete creatures, behave as waves under certain circumstances as you probably know. Going one step further, as you know, everything can be considered a wave and you can attribute a DeBroglie wavelength to any matter.
So my problem is that I fail to see the distinct difference between music and other sorts of waves. Or is there a difference between music and normal sound waves?

Thanks.

Edit: Btw, perhaps we could refrain from referring to 'God' or I fear this thread might get locked pretty soon.



St. Panda,

A masterful analysis! You have clarified everything for me. Obviously music is no different from light or other waves, to it just gets down to our mechanisms for perception. so, Dr. Wells, which is it? vanilla chocolate or strawberry?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:01 PM Post #18 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears
so, Dr. Wells, which is it? vanilla chocolate or strawberry?


icon10.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:12 PM Post #19 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Julz
To be fair, I think that quantum physics made be just a little over most of our heads... I think most of what you say can be more accurately explained with String Theory.. just my opinion..


String theory, as describing the essence of existence, has good mathematical support. Vibrating strings or loops may be God's computation that run s the universe. Anoher theory is of a quantum foam that vibrates or pulsates. At the essence of everthing is pulsations. Music is a language of pulsations.

The term 'God' here is an amoral causality process that controls energy and material manisfestation/change. This is not the delusional God of religion.

This stuff is very abstract - it is a summary that would take volumes to expalin, and as such is really incomprehensible. Some might get some intuitive grasp of some of it.

Music is communicative and emotionally satisfying - it plays on our deeper motivations and give some pleasurabe event to same. In order to do this it must first be intellectually understood in perceptual processing.

Bottom line: music is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally satisfying, and everyone should deepen their musical appreciation. Doesn't matter what you like.
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:15 PM Post #20 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells
The term 'God' here is an amoral causality process that controls energy and material manisfestation/change. This is not the delusional God of religion.


This thread is definitely history...
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:31 PM Post #21 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Julz
I love how saint.panda starts with "being a real layman", then "lays" this on us..


Julz, thanks but please believe me that there was absolutely no false modesty in this. I'm light years apart from even being able to compute things with quantum phyiscs (since you'd apparently need killer math skills for that), let alone truly "understand" it. If someone was real fussy about it, he'd quote Niels Bohr, the godfather of quantum physics, who once said that no one really "understands" quantum physics (although the times might have changed since then).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunnyears
St. Panda,

A masterful analysis! You have clarified everything for me. Obviously music is no different from light or other waves, to it just gets down to our mechanisms for perception.



Thank you but this was really only school physics coupled with well-placed name-dropping.
smily_headphones1.gif


Not directing this to drarthuswells but there's just a lot of humbug around quantum physics so I'm sceptical about anything that tries to associate quantum physics with art, philosophy, etc. Quantum physics is completely non-intuitive so that you can practically hide any nonsense under its banner.

In any case, I'd appreciate it if drarthurwells could answer my certainly rather simple questions, which should not require entire volumes of text to reply to.


And: Could we please leave 'God' out of the equation for the sake of comforming with the rules?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:39 PM Post #22 of 69
I really must get in some more comments, as this thread will probably not only be locked but also deleted.

There is an amoral causality that runs the universe through vibrations, and classical music is the best way to commune with this amoral causality. I think that's what's being said. However, I think that one should really read these statements aloud. Doing that puts a different perspective on things. It helps one consider them in a new, bright light.
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:52 PM Post #23 of 69
saint.panda : You say that the non-material universe consists of quantum waves and is placed outside the realms of space and time.

Art: Actually sub-quantum is a more accurate a description of the level of non-materiality (non-material to us and a realm of data or thought) outside of space and time (where eveything is everywhere simultaneously, making possible teleportation, quantum tunneling, quantum erasure phenmona).

saint: Being a real laymen I thought waves in quantum physics provide you with information in regards to its probability at a certain position. Also, if you look at the Schrödinger equation, space and time are actually involved, so I'm a bit confused here.

Art: Yes, physical waves are not the same as non-material waves at the level of strings or quantum foam. The wave function is a way of describing how different and materially mutually exclusive properties can simultaneously exist. At a basic wave function level, any thing is everywhere at all points in the past, present, and future. Such concepts are the only way to explain quantum and paranormal phenomena (telekinesis for example)

saint: Further, you say that music is a manifestation of this non-discrete but continous world but I thought sound is nothing more than air particles moving back and forth, which is quite discrete in my opinion.

Art: Yes. Music is physical as are particles and particle changes (material vibrations). Music communicates similarly to the non-material language or code of the basis of the universe - string or quantum wave vibrations. In these string vibrations, much of the future is contained as well as the past, which forms the discrete present in discrete successions of the quantum leap.
This formed present is replaced by another, and a new past is added to the past data. So the past accrues. Now the expanded past is data for generating even more into the future - the future expands also. The computation that generates new futures as old pasts accrue is the phase pulsations that comprise the music of the universe that is in contant flow, and occurs in a continuous medium outside if space and time.

saint: Now if you say that by listening to music, we can communicate with the universe (let's not use God due to forum rules), then how are sound waves different from let's say electromagnetic waves which we encounter everyday, that is light, which I'd personally categorize under "everyday sensory experience of the material world".

Art: Physical waves, like light and sound, are the data aspects of material particles. They occur in a holographic realm, transformed to discrete experience in the non-holographic realm of sensory focus, then brain-processed and memory stored back into a holographic realm for retrieval in awareness in a non-holgraphic focus as material things. Physical waves link directly to the non-material vibrations - particles are ways we conctruct the material world in perception. Music links more closely to the holographic continuity which flows directly from the data computation of the universe outside of space and time.
.
saint: Can't everything be considered a wave according to the wave-particle dualism?

Art: Yes. If we look for a wave we find it and if we look for a particle we find, and both from the same source.

saint: So my problem is that I fail to see the distinct difference between music and other sorts of waves. Or is there a difference between music and normal sound waves?

Art: No. But musical language communicates more data than the sound of traffic. We say it is more meaningful. The music underlying the universe is maximally meaningful - it is pure meaning itself.

saint: Btw, perhaps we could refrain from referring to 'God' or I fear this thread might get locked pretty soon.

Art: Is 'Allah' ok?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:54 PM Post #24 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08
I really must get in some more comments, as this thread will probably not only be locked but also deleted.

There is an amoral causality that runs the universe through vibrations, and classical music is the best way to commune with this amoral causality. I think that's what's being said. However, I think that one should really read these statements aloud. Doing that puts a different perspective on things. It helps one consider them in a new, bright light.



Isn't that somewhat contradictory and counterproductive?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:57 PM Post #25 of 69
NO religious or political content on Head-Fi. Moderators tend to have itchy locking fingers when it comes to those two subjects.

One question, a serious one, since we're still being serious:

How does music have these powers if music was created by men who had no special link to this underlying language?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:57 PM Post #26 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells

However, the non-material universe is continuous, outside of space and time, as a quantum wave function in supposition of simultaneously existing potentials, but the wave function collapse produces material phenomena in the world as we know it (however illusionary it really is).

At a God level of the universe, reality is a vast and ever changing symphony of sub-quantum vibrations - the computational basis of materialization.



How is this anything more than speculation? Can you define the "non-material universe?" Wrapping a delusion in obfuscating terms does not make it correct. You say that this is somehow related to string theory, which has some kind of supposed mathematical foundation. Science is simply a system of generalizations of observed phenomena, along with appropriate mathematical approximations. There is no true notion of proof in science, and this is a highly debated topic in the philosophy of science. Without observed phenomena, I am skeptical of any scientific basis of your argument. This is why science can often be an exercise in futility.

I propose a condensed version of this original post:
"Both intellectual and emotional involvement are important aspects of the enjoyment of music. You cannot ignore either one. Don't be afraid to enjoy music that others deride, and always try to expand your tastes in music."
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 7:58 PM Post #27 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda
Isn't that somewhat contradictory and counterproductive?


Well, I want it on the record, for however long, that I had an opinion on the matter. To answer your question: Sure, but what's the problem?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 8:00 PM Post #28 of 69
Art, thanks for the extensive reply, which definately exceeded the amount I can grasp. As I admitted earlier, I have no deeper understanding about quantum physics, and even less of string theory. Add some lack of scientific English proficiency and I'm left with no choice but resignation.

Could you perhaps forward me to specific further readings?
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 8:08 PM Post #29 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda
Art, thanks for the extensive reply, which definately exceeded the amount I can grasp. As I admitted earlier, I have no deeper understanding about quantum physics, and even less of string theory. Add some lack of scientific English proficiency and I'm left with no choice but resignation.

Could you perhaps forward me to specific further readings?



David Bohm and Karl Pribram. Give me your e-mail in PM and I will forward you my Ontology chapter in WORD format. It's everything you ever wanted to know about existence, and then regreted asking for after you got it and started reading it.
 
Jul 9, 2005 at 8:17 PM Post #30 of 69
Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08
NO religious or political content on Head-Fi. Moderators tend to have itchy locking fingers when it comes to those two subjects.

One question, a serious one, since we're still being serious:

How does music have these powers if music was created by men who had no special link to this underlying language?



Good question. We are all linked to this underlying language where everything is One. Also, our brain computation is like that of the universe - the universal mind computes like ours only it take in everything, present, past and future, in its computations.

Every single particle has a mind or computational aspect, and all is linked in universal mind (G**). Our intellect participates more in universal mind than does an electron however.

So our perceptual intellect is linked to that of the universe and can comunicate in the language of music.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top