Petition to ban Sculptor

[gib]

That's exactly what I am saying, that I am presenting the TRUTH, and science is living in a fantasy world and being completely unscientific. Moreover, I am saying science boards are corrupt, AND current accepted theory is actually not science, but it is RELIGION. Moderators on science boards are protecting their religion (Special Relativity) by banning the truth that I have presented to them. They are not interested in doing science (which is communicated by the language of math), they are only interested in defending Einstein's BS.

So just out of curiosity, do you believe relativity theory has been tested before? That experiments have been done to show either that relativity theory is true or that it's false? What do you believe the results showed?

[Motor Daddy]

That's exactly what I am saying, that I am presenting the TRUTH, and science is living in a fantasy world and being completely unscientific. Moreover, I am saying science boards are corrupt, AND current accepted theory is actually not science, but it is RELIGION. Moderators on science boards are protecting their religion (Special Relativity) by banning the truth that I have presented to them. They are not interested in doing science (which is communicated by the language of math), they are only interested in defending Einstein's BS.

So just out of curiosity, do you believe relativity theory has been tested before? That experiments have been done to show either that relativity theory is true or that it's false? What do you believe the results showed?

I do not believe length contraction has ever been shown to be a reality. Since the math contains length contraction, the math has never been shown to be real world, so real world experiments using that math are operating on faith, which is absolutely incorrect. Results arrived at using a BS theory and BS math are BS results. Simples really.

But what I believe has nothing to do with it. I don't operate on FAITH, I operate on TRUTH! The truth of the matter is that time is absolute, there is no length contraction, and Einstein's second postulate is BUNK!
MD's Box proves that! There is absolute velocity, which I proved mathematically. What Relativity calls relative motion is actually closing speed. Absolute velocity is not closing speed, it is the velocity of one object traversing space at its own rate in space. Space is not an object. Relativity doesn't acknowledge that a single object can have a velocity in space. I could go on and on and on why Special Relativity is pure BS! But I digress.

[gib]

I do not believe length contraction has ever been shown to be a reality. Since the math contains length contraction, the math has never been shown to be real world, so real world experiments using that math are operating on faith, which is absolutely incorrect. Results arrived at using a BS theory and BS math are BS results. Simples really.

Why specifically length contraction? There are other variables that have relativistic effects--time, mass, energy, etc.--have they been shown to be a reality?

But anyway, it's hard to say how you're answering the question. You mention that length contraction is part of the math, and that makes it BS. Are you saying the math is begging the question? It assumes the theory to begin with and is therefore invalid? If this is what you're saying, then it sounds like you're saying the results support relativity theory but it was a rigged experiment anyway. So this more or less says: no, the theory has never been tested, not properly at least.

[Ierrellus]

Math is a function that can aid in construction of instruments designed to transcend themselves. Without math there would be no music.

[Sculptor]

Math is a function that can aid in construction of instruments designed to transcend themselves. Without math there would be no music.

False.
The birds know no maths, neither do the whales, yet they have had music long before humans came down from the trees banging tree stumps.
There was a long musical tradiction long before people started to count on their fingers.
And people all over the world still make music without ever having a single maths lesson.

[gib]

Math is a function that can aid in construction of instruments designed to transcend themselves. Without math there would be no music.

False.
The birds know no maths, neither do the whales, yet they have had music long before humans came down from the trees banging tree stumps.
There was a long musical tradiction long before people started to count on their fingers.
And people all over the world still make music without ever having a single maths lesson.

This all depends on what Ierrellus meant by "Without math there would be no music." Obviously, birds and whales don't need to take a math course to sing their songs, and usually humans don't either (although I wondering if it would help). But there are many ways to interpret what Ierrellus said. Math is the language of nature. It is how nature expresses herself. Everything that comes out of nature is founded on math, including music wherever and however it manifests. Another interpretation is that maybe the part of the brain responsible for creating music relies on the part of the brain responsible for math (or overlaps with it). A keen sense of music requires careful attention to timing and pitch, both of which are quantifiable. If either are off only by a little, the music quality degrades. Therefore, an aptitude for music requires an aptitude for dealing with quantities--the exact timing of the beat, the exact amount by which to raise or lower the pitch, the amount of volume to add or take away from this or that track, this or that part of the song--so maybe the math part of the brain is intricately involved in the music part of the brain. This still doesn't mean one has to take a math course to be good at music, but one probably needs the ability to process math, or to think mathematically, in order to give us music. True, whales and birds don't have any knowledge of or skill at mathematics, but their song is a different kind of thing than human song (it's not the kind of thing you'd play in the score of a movie, for example). However, maybe even they, to some extent, in some way, have a sense for mathematics, some special attention to quantities and precision, without which they couldn't sing. Maybe they require it in order to sing their songs. Who knows what goes on in animal minds. Who knows how their brains process information and what they require.

[Ierrellus]

Thanks gib. You really spelled out decently the relationship between math and music.
Who knows what is in animal minds?
Sculptor knows, and he will tell us.

[Sculptor]

Thanks gib. You really spelled out decently the relationship between math and music.
Who knows what is in animal minds?
Sculptor knows, and he will tell us.

Do you deny that music predates maths?

[Meno_]

.

[Sculptor]

What is Maths?

Maths is a descriptive system by which humans try to describe the world. Like other langauges there is a limited relationship between the signified and the signifier.
Maths is clever, but much of the apparent cleverness is self referential and its relationship to reality is limited.
A quick examination of the fundemental concepts of Maths will soon demonstrate its limitations.
The Integer. There is not integers in reality. Interegers are a convenience by which humans choose to ignore the differences bewtween objects. There is one orange, here is another. We may say 1+1=2, and yet no two oranges are identical. IN fact there are no two identical things in the universe. Each at least has to occupy a different point in the space time continuum. But on a mundane level it is an impossibility that two orages could ever weigh exatly the same, and as time passes every orange in the universe is subject to change in the environement.
But the most fundemental tool of the mathematician is not what it appears to be. 1+1=2 is only self referentially correct, and is only an approximation when it comes to reality.
Circles, Squares, Triangle and other conceits of the mathematical world.
Stuff looks round or triangluar, and thes phantoms of the 2D world are use to help us model reality. But as with Inegers there is not such thing in nature as 2 D shapes. They simply do not exist. Yet in maths circles are perfect.
There are many other problems with Maths trying to represent reality. But these two examples should be enough to demonstrate what maths is.
Other areas of concern.
Irrational numbers.
Square root of -1
Maths is digital. Reality is ultimately not divisible. Reality is analogue.
This is of particular significance to music since our mathematisation of music insists on arbitrary deinfiions given by the Western world of scales. Perfect pitch is of no significance in nature. And human societies do not feel the need to obey our arbitrary scales and note definitions.

Formal music and maths do not fit well together. If maths precedes music then why is it that the frequency differential between upper C and D is not the same as lowest C and D. These conventions are more about the arbitrary structure of the human ear and the societal conventions of Western music than anything to do with their mathematical values.
Maybe you have asked yourself why the third and fifth point in the common scale is a semitone whilst all the other notes are separated bya full tone. Yet the frequency differences of that tone are not constant.

This all points to maths being a recent conceit of humanity by defintion. and not ever specifically designed to describe music.
Maths cannot say anything about the meaning of music. Confusing it with maths is absurd.

I could go on, but as there seens to be so much negativity towards me I doubt that anyone would take the trouble to read and understand.

[iambiguous]

What is Maths?

Maths is a descriptive system by which humans try to describe the world. Like other langauges there is a limited relationship between the signified and the signifier.
Maths is clever, but much of the apparent cleverness is self referential and its relationship to reality is limited.
A quick examination of the fundemental concepts of Maths will soon demonstrate its limitations.
The Integer. There is not integers in reality. Interegers are a convenience by which humans choose to ignore the differences bewtween objects. There is one orange, here is another. We may say 1+1=2, and yet no two oranges are identical. IN fact there are no two identical things in the universe. Each at least has to occupy a different point in the space time continuum. But on a mundane level it is an impossibility that two orages could ever weigh exatly the same, and as time passes every orange in the universe is subject to change in the environement.
But the most fundemental tool of the mathematician is not what it appears to be. 1+1=2 is only self referentially correct, and is only an approximation when it comes to reality.
Circles, Squares, Triangle and other conceits of the mathematical world.
Stuff looks round or triangluar, and thes phantoms of the 2D world are use to help us model reality. But as with Inegers there is not such thing in nature as 2 D shapes. They simply do not exist. Yet in maths circles are perfect.
There are many other problems with Maths trying to represent reality. But these two examples should be enough to demonstrate what maths is.
Other areas of concern.
Irrational numbers.
Square root of -1
Maths is digital. Reality is ultimately not divisible. Reality is analogue.
This is of particular significance to music since our mathematisation of music insists on arbitrary deinfiions given by the Western world of scales. Perfect pitch is of no significance in nature. And human societies do not feel the need to obey our arbitrary scales and note definitions.

Formal music and maths do not fit well together. If maths precedes music then why is it that the frequency differential between upper C and D is not the same as lowest C and D. These conventions are more about the arbitrary structure of the human ear and the societal conventions of Western music than anything to do with their mathematical values.
Maybe you have asked yourself why the third and fifth point in the common scale is a semitone whilst all the other notes are separated bya full tone. Yet the frequency differences of that tone are not constant.

This all points to maths being a recent conceit of humanity by defintion. and not ever specifically designed to describe music.
Maths cannot say anything about the meaning of music. Confusing it with maths is absurd.

I could go on, but as there seens to be so much negativity towards me I doubt that anyone would take the trouble to read and understand.

ILP in a nutshell!

Here's a thread titled "Petition to ban Sculptor" and even Sculptor himself sustains an exchange about Maths!!!

[Magnus Anderson]

That's correct. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with maths and physics.

I could go on, but as there seens to be so much negativity towards me I doubt that anyone would take the trouble to read and understand.

This guy right here already addressed your postmodern way of thinking. Though, it has to be noted, it's unrelated to whether or not math is necessary for music. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start a new thread and call it something like "1+1=2 is only approximately true" or "There is no such thing as 'one human'".

[Sculptor]

Ah yes that is the ILP way.

talk bollocks then when someone relates some ideas that you had never thought of you just insult them.
Well done iam biggnob and maggy,

Amother point your two are too dull witted to consider is this; the completely arbitrary realtionship between tonality and mathematical definition.
I doubt either of you are cleve enough to understand the significance of this fact but people with perfect pitch who have been brought up in a home with a poorly tuned piano are doomed to never be able to play music. Because the numerical defintion of common pitches is utterly based on social convention.
Such people have learned to wrong notes are can never make use of their perfect pitch.
SImply enough there is no direct relationship being the human phenomenon of music and maths, none, zero.

Exactly like I said the universe is not written in maths. Maths is a langauge devised by people to help them desribe it.

[Sculptor]

This all depends on what Ierrellus meant by "Without math there would be no music.".

What it means is that Irrelevant says shit he's not thought out.

It's like saying without written English there would be no poetry.

[Motor Daddy]

SImply enough there is no direct relationship being the human phenomenon of music and maths, none, zero.

Frequency is cycles per second. A note of A4 tuned to 440 cycles per second (440 hertz) is double the frequency of an A3 220 hertz, which is double the frequency of an A2 110 hertz. Every note has double the frequency an octave higher. This is math, which is used to describe cycles per second, which is heard by humans as sound. This happens in the real world, frequency is detected by humans, and we prefer certain arrangements of frequencies and call it "music." Would you still detect sound if there were no math? Absolutely, but you would have no way to measure those frequencies if there were no math. Cycles per second is math, and it's called frequency.

Light has a frequency of 1 cycle per second. It has a wave length of 299,792,458 meters. Frequency times wave length is the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s. A frequency of a note of 440 hertz has a wave length of
299,792,458 ÷ 440 = 681,346.4955 meters.

[Magnus Anderson]

talk bollocks then when someone relates some ideas that you had never thought of you just insult them.
Well done iam biggnob and maggy,

Maggy and Biggnob certainly didn't insult you. They merely pointed out that you're being off-topic.

The thing is that, even if your ideas are previously unheard of truths (which I don't think they are), you shouldn't be presenting them here in this thread. Whichever way you look at it, you have no justification for what you're doing.

Amother point your two are too dull witted to consider is this; the completely arbitrary realtionship between tonality and mathematical definition.
I doubt either of you are cleve enough to understand the significance of this fact but people with perfect pitch who have been brought up in a home with a poorly tuned piano are doomed to never be able to play music. Because the numerical defintion of common pitches is utterly based on social convention.
Such people have learned to wrong notes are can never make use of their perfect pitch.
SImply enough there is no direct relationship being the human phenomenon of music and maths, none, zero.

Instead of talking so much, you should spend a bit more time listening to what other people are trying to say. As an example, I never said that without maths there can be no music. In fact, I don't even know what Ierrellus meant when he said that. What I know is that it's off-topic (it has nothing to do with whether or not you should be banned.) And though it's true that I disagree with you, I don't disagree with your claim that one can make music without knowing anything about maths (if you ask me, very much doable.) But I do disagree with statements such as "1+1=2 is merely an an approximation when it comes to reality". To use your language, they are pretty dumb. I am interested in discussing these things with you -- but in a different thread, not here. Thank you very much. Now kindly leave this thread and die.

[Sculptor]

SImply enough there is no direct relationship being the human phenomenon of music and maths, none, zero.

Frequency is cycles per second. A note of A4 tuned to 440 cycles per second (440 hertz) is double the frequency of an A3 220 hertz, which is double the frequency of an A2 110 hertz. Every note has double the frequency an octave higher. This is math, which is used to describe cycles per second, which is heard by humans as sound. This happens in the real world, frequency is detected by humans, and we prefer certain arrangements of frequencies and call it "music." Would you still detect sound if there were no math? Absolutely, but you would have no way to measure those frequencies if there were no math. Cycles per second is math, and it's called frequency.

Light has a frequency of 1 cycle per second. It has a wave length of 299,792,458 meters. Frequency times wave length is the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s. A frequency of a note of 440 hertz has a wave length of
299,792,458 ÷ 440 = 681,346.4955 meters.

All these sounds existed before maths.
All you have done is used maths to describe them.
Maths is based ON SOUND, not the other way round.
You see the sun move around the planet and convince yourself that the earth is the centre of the universe.
I am pretty horrified that I have to point this out.

[Sculptor]

talk bollocks then when someone relates some ideas that you had never thought of you just insult them.
Well done iam biggnob and maggy,

Maggy and Biggnob certainly didn't insult you. They merely pointed out that you're being off-topic.

I was not the one that brough up music. Nor am I the one who said this; "Without math there would be no music."

If you want to rant about being off topic then take it up with someone else.

[Magnus Anderson]

I was not the one that brough up music. Nor am I the one who said this; "Without math there would be no music."

If you want to rant about being off topic then take it up with someone else.

A post is said to be off-topic if and only if it does not stick to the subject. Your recent posts do not stick to the subject, therefore, they are off-topic.

Moreoever, you wrote more on the subject of music than Ierrellus did. He wrote two very short posts, you wrote three short and two long posts (not counting your response to Motor Daddy.)

But if it consoles you, you're not the worst. Several pages ago, Gib started an off-topic branch of discussion pertaining to physics with main participants being Motor Daddy, Pedro and me.

[Magnus Anderson]

Frequency is cycles per second. A note of A4 tuned to 440 cycles per second (440 hertz) is double the frequency of an A3 220 hertz, which is double the frequency of an A2 110 hertz. Every note has double the frequency an octave higher. This is math, which is used to describe cycles per second, which is heard by humans as sound. This happens in the real world, frequency is detected by humans, and we prefer certain arrangements of frequencies and call it "music." Would you still detect sound if there were no math? Absolutely, but you would have no way to measure those frequencies if there were no math. Cycles per second is math, and it's called frequency.

In order to be able to come up with a pleasant arrangement of sounds, all you need is an ability to create those sounds (e.g. by singing, by imagining them, etc), an ability to tell which combinations are pleasant and which aren't, and enough time to discover a satisfying combination. You don't need to know anything about how those sounds are created (that would be physics/acoustics.) You also don't need to know what terms such as "frequency", "Hertz", "note", "pitch" and "octave" mean. You don't even need to be familiar with decimal numeral system that we're all familiar with. In fact, you don't need to be familiar with any numeral system at all. All of these things can be helpful (e.g. if you want to design musical instruments or otherwise improve your creative process) but they aren't necessary.

All of this is, of course, irrelevant to the subject (:

[gib]

What it means is that Irrelevant says shit he's not thought out.

And you wonder why there's a petition to ban you.

It's like saying without written English there would be no poetry.

No, it's more like saying Sculptor doesn't bother to read past the first line that provokes his rage--well okay, it's not like saying that at all, but come on man--you really think Ierrellus is saying you have to take a math course to produce music? Nothing could be more obvious than that there has to be a different interpretation. Hey, I know! Why don't you go back and read the ones I suggested?! Or better yet, ask Ierrellus!

[Motor Daddy]

All of these things can be helpful (e.g. if you want to design musical instruments or otherwise improve your creative process) but they aren't necessary.

Like I said, you would still hear sound without knowing math, but you would not be able to measure it without math. We hear different frequencies, and we have math to measure and communicate those frequencies. I can communicate to you that my guitar is tuned to A4 440 Hz and you can tune your guitar the same, because of math.

[Ierrellus]

By music being dependent on math I should have specified what I meant by music. I meant this is true mostly of the stringed instruments such as violin, piano, guitar, etc. I was not referring to animal sounds, although those can be recorded and measured. Without math there is no Beethoven or rock and roll.

[Arcturus Descending]

I voted "NO" - not to ban Sculptor. I am rather surprised that l7 have voted to ban him as opposed to 12 who have not.
Why? I am not sure but perhaps it is because I just did not realize that there are at least 12 perfect ones here. Why is it that we are so quick to condemn?

How often have we looked up into a beautiful blue sky which suddenly becomes filled with so many clouds and not much of a glimmer of blue. What does the sky do? It carries those clouds until they are ready to change shape and dwindle down on their own - sometimes quicker than you can even imagine.

Does the vast Sky ban the clouds?

[Magnus Anderson]

If you have a goal and you want to attain it, you have to do whatever is necessary to do. If that involves limiting certain things, as is often the case, then that's what you should do. If you want to move from A to B, you have to make sure that nothing makes it more difficult than it's necessary for you to reach your destination (whether that's something from within, such as your impulses, or something from without, such as other people and/or things.)

Of course, people can be fooled into thinking they shouldn't ban certain things, most commonly by appealing to their vanity; but that doesn't change the reality of their situation. Obviously, if it's necessary to ban certain things in order to attain your goals, that means your can't attain your goals without banning certain things. Others might say that's a sign of weakness (in the sense that you don't have the capacity to attain your goals while being distracted) and you might be compelled to hide it from others by not banning whatever or whoever you wanted to ban. And though it's true that such a thing is a weakness (at least in some sense of the word), it's usually neither true that 1) there are people who are capable of completing such a task, nor that 2) you shouldn't fight distractions.

Merely in order to sleep well, you have to make sure that your bedroom is 1) dark (all lights turned off, TV switched off, etc), and 2) quiet (your TV, radio and computer must be all switched off, there must be no people around you making noise, etc.) Of course, you can sleep with your lights on and with your neighbours having a really loud party -- it's not like you can't sleep at all -- but the quality of such a sleep would be pretty low. You can call it weakness all you want but you can't deny it's more or less a universal one; and sleeping in a noisy environment will merely be a handicap you're imposing on yourself for the purpose of maintaing positive self-image (in your own eyes at least.)

And the same goes for participating in Internet discussions. People come here with a certain goal in mind, and if it's too difficult to attain, they will simply leave (by going to another forum or by giving up on the Internet as a medium of social interaction.) Some people don't because they end up forgetting why they came here in the first place which is a direct consequence of being distracted (and thus a reason to fight distractions.) Most commonly, they become addicted to arguing / polemics / fighting. It becomes all about enacting a revenge on those who have harmed you in the past (one way or another) and those who are similar to them and thus perceived as potentially harmful. And though it's true that different people come here for different reasons, philosophy forums are supposed to be places where philosophical arguments can be exchanged and people can benefit from each other's insights. It's not a place where people come to personally attack those they dislike. It's also not a place for propagandists. It's not even a place for bloggers (those who want to share their insights and attract certain audience but who are not interested in any kind of interaction other than perhaps the one that exists between celebrities and their fans) nor chit-chatters (those who like to talk about their amazing and often even banal experiences from their past.) So anything that stifles philosophical learning should be fought with a force of forum software. If I'm discussing something with someone and someone else pops in to tell us that my interlocutor is an idiot, I have absolutely no reason to tolerate that person. He's personally attacking my interlocutor, and since we all know how distracting personal attacks are, he's making it difficult for me to talk to the other guy. He's also making it difficult for others to read our exchange.