Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

reply to post by tachyonmind


I am not totally sure, myself. haha perhaps this:

The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way. -Paul dirac

but I find it difficult to understand why chaos is math, but quantum isn't. mathematics and physics are often the same thing. I am not the first person to do so. sure, there is always a more precise language. but I do not want to overwhelm the topic. it can be a tricky balance. I think I am improving.

reply to post by tgidkp


Conservatives in relation to quantum mechanics insist the issues are totally random. That would make for an inductive explanation as to how the Universe as we understand it, is random.

Nonetheless what we can perceive as potentially random in some overall sense could very well be totally non-random

And as such, in a sense, part of some order we as of yet do not fully comprehend.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I apologize for my blind insistence on several issues. I know that it can be offputting. I really have enjoyed your input to the conversation.

I, too, hate Dawkins.... and I am primarily a bioscientist. he represents the exact type of person that I would never wish to have a conversation with. you shouldn't bother reading him nor the electric meme. however, I really think you would benefit a great deal from ken Wilbur's "sex, ecology, spirituality". don't stress about the 900ish page length. all the best stuff is in the first couple hundred. and based on your posts that I've read, it'll blow you away.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

the critical factor in all cases is a condition of resonance (re: the OP) between the physical structure (system) and the energetic waveform incident upon it.

The interesting thing about this is as we probe deeper it appears there are no physical structures, well, there are physical structures, but those physical structures are only energetic wave forms.

I dont have many pet theories. Just hunches and insights I follow to their logical conclusions and nothing remains proven. And im not good with threads and images, would rather just discuss on your sufficient threads.

One of the biggest problems to me, is the size and containment of the universe. Is the universe a bound system (subatomic particles/quantum fields interacting in 'space-time/vacuum') with infinite space surrounding it? Is it a bound space with finite space surrounding it? Is it a bound system with no space around it, making it the only system, all that there is, has been, and ever will be? Are there more systems surrounding it? If so, what is surrounding them? To be as stable as the universe seems to be, it must actually be stable, and as powerful and real as it seems, I mean yea it could be that at some more absolute perspective of time the universe has only existed for 1 second, but there is so much detail and computation in our daily lives, and we know the universe has existed for many days, in its most recent generation at least. So I guess my pet theory would be that, for some reason, energy exists, lots of it, it all happens to be near, itself, and it happens to separate into infinite infinitesimal quantities, and those quanta interact to build stable structures, so energy along with the laws that guide it force it into stability while the yang to that ying is entropy, and then at some point perhaps at maximum entropy the universe will be 'inside out' or at the bottem of the hill, but the kinetic momentum it underwent while going down the hill, is enough to push it back up the other side, and so it just does this forever. Maybe losing the tiniest increment of energy each time, which ends up with a completely different mathematical framework for a stable reality. And for some reason some of the logarithm and physical computations of energy interactions result in 'being', many beings throughout these realities, so its like in each reality, or some may not even result in beings, but if no beings, noone to know a reality exists, (this is anthropic principle I guess), So every quanta of energy is literally a dice being rolled, a determined probability, but as the functions continue to compute over time, infact time doesnt exist, time is, the energetic functions interacting, some result in complex equations, and flower into instances of extreme novelty which reminds me of cellular automatons. This is pretty much mainstream sciences take on things.

Originally posted by Kashai

Field, in my eyes, is just a measurement of an energy's orbit - it is nothing more. I think using field in its common vernacular is like saying we bumped into one another because our fields (our bodies in motion) came into contact with one another. Maybe it's better to say field is the convectional path of energy whereby the path is but a variable and has no real control - we can move paths(fields), but we can't change the controlling mechanism without changing the archetypal essence of the body of energy

That sounds like a random event , we cannot actually generate random events.

edit on 10-8-2013 by Kashai because: added content

If you had 100 identical pits of sand. And 100 identical sticks of dynamite placed perfectly in the same position in the identical spot of the identical pits of sand, and this was made sure everything was exact with super computers with very delicate hands, and the dynamite was blown, and the sand blasted into the air, (unless we wanna do the experiment in vacuum, if not, the scenario of the air is also identical) are you saying that every grain of sand in each of the 100 trials, would have the same trajectory through the air and land in the same location? If not, would this be an example of generating a random event?

reply to post by ImaFungi


getting to the bottom of the bottom of the bottom.... is not an easy task. many times, as you have indicated with "yin and yang" and cellular automata (seriously a favorite of mine) are good examples of the fact that many times in order to understand such a fundamental state, we must allow ourselves to occupy a perspective which may not necessarily translate DIRECTLY to our current phenomenal experience.

this is why pictures and myths and directed visualizations are essential to the task, even though they are often categorically dismissed by literalists (is that a word?). i have been considering making a thread which is short on words and explanations and long on illustrations which have helped me to conceptualize and find satisfactory answers to the same questions you seek.

ultimately, it is very very very likely that many of these fundamental questions will never be definitively answered. but that does not mean that such answers do not exist or that they can not be described objectively. i know that sounds like a paradox.... and there is a very good reason that i opened up my GAP/GOD thread with a parodox and its proposed solution. perhaps it might be useful to consider you, yourself, as the resolution to the paradoxical conflict which you have vividly and repeatedly pointed out appears to be built in to the universe.

or, perhaps not. (good thing i didnt put this thread in the science forum, haha)

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Kashai

Field, in my eyes, is just a measurement of an energy's orbit - it is nothing more. I think using field in its common vernacular is like saying we bumped into one another because our fields (our bodies in motion) came into contact with one another. Maybe it's better to say field is the convectional path of energy whereby the path is but a variable and has no real control - we can move paths(fields), but we can't change the controlling mechanism without changing the archetypal essence of the body of energy

That sounds like a random event , we cannot actually generate random events.

edit on 10-8-2013 by Kashai because: added content

If you had 100 identical pits of sand. And 100 identical sticks of dynamite placed perfectly in the same position in the identical spot of the identical pits of sand, and this was made sure everything was exact with super computers with very delicate hands, and the dynamite was blown, and the sand blasted into the air, (unless we wanna do the experiment in vacuum, if not, the scenario of the air is also identical) are you saying that every grain of sand in each of the 100 trials, would have the same trajectory through the air and land in the same location? If not, would this be an example of generating a random event?

I am saying that what we are capable of understanding in relation to such an event is akin, perhaps to observing a shadow. This of what happened outside our capacity to comprehend, due to our observations only being the result of internal representations. Also, say for example in the case of your thought experiment the test was preformed 1 billion times? It is possible then that a pattern could be found?

That's the thing about random number generators as well.

Think about the casinos who spend millions of dollars every to make sure there games are randomized, in such a way that favors them.

Though in practice and solely as just one example....

Link

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

perhaps it might be useful to consider you, yourself, as the resolution to the paradoxical conflict which you have vividly and repeatedly pointed out appears to be built in to the universe.

or, perhaps not. )

Yea I see what you mean, the images you choose for threads are very helpful and images in general are very helpful, when we talk of any theory we are using images we create in our heads, to better share what we think and see in our heads, images outside of our heads certainly help in doing that (imagination...Image nation...maybe).

As for the, built iness or reflectiveness, after thinking I came up with why that might be completely wrong. It could be completely right, completely wrong, but the best odds are likely it is a mixture of both. What made me think of this, is a concept favored by science, emergence. Basically is it possible that systems can evolve that result in being so far removed from their more simple and fundamental beginnings that they are difficult to even reduce, because there is nothing even remotely like it in the fundamental dichotomy of the base reality. Of course its always a little of both, because the limits and parameters of a system deterministically and undeniably allow what is able to happen, be able to happen. What I immediately think of when thinking that the universe may not be reducible from what we experience and exist, to comprehend its most fundamentality, is a computer. The hard ware can be probed, to an extent we can understand electrons, and we can use them to create software codes, constructs of energy/information, to create emergent systems such as a video game or word processor. There is the source, and the creation, the result. And the result is vastly different from the raw fundamentals of the source, which allows the creation to arise. If there were conscious beings trapped in the projection of a digital computer simulation, and their experience was not the experience of direct electrons going through gates, or of symbolic numbers and letters computing, but of what the electrons and numbers and letters and hardware 'produced' , then would it be possible for them to understand how their reality was being created, and would they be able to understand what they are? I guess the answer is yes, because if reality is anything like what I described, I kinda understand how that would be possible, but the possibly impossibility of breaching 'the matrix' or emergence, may mean we may never fully comprehend, know, understand, and prove, The Truth.

reply to post by Kashai


Are the digits of Pi random? is this number random 380670360367368697346, do I have a reason or purpose for typing those exact digits, or is this random 320608308368037070707007070793486530495729857493?

reply to post by ImaFungi


so i went a-hunting through some old links, hoping to find something to inspire you...

...i came across a website which will, at very least, stun you in its vast insanity.

but insanity may not be quite fair. anyways, great entertainment for the evening.

visitor from planet Aituri

Can you explain, what does Key, chords, tones and different ways instruments are setup relate to chaos theory?
I understand you are trying to say something, I'm just wondering what angle your taking?

As I guess are you looking at the deeper way the instruments are designed and built to the point were noises are created and how them noises react to us and those around?

I don't mean to come across as cagey if I do come across that way, genuinely wondering what the jist is.

My field is music and I've built my own guitars, string boxes as well as many other things so it 1.Interests me but 2. I may be able to add something.

S+F

reply to post by Taggart


a chaotic system is one in which a system is at the edge of its own stability. a couple of great examples are the Logistic Map, and fractals in general.

generating such a state often involves feedback of the system's output, back into it's input.... as described in the "modal" tuning in the OP. it is more properly defined as a recurrence relation, or simply, recursion.

the OP is intended as an exploration of this type of system, and how it might compare to a similar system which is described via quantum theory.... and some basic concepts about why one might be a better candidate than the other as a model for living systems and consciousness. the concept of "resonance" plays a vital role in the description of such a system.

another example, which might be more to your liking (as a guitarist), is that of distortion harmonics produced as you overload an audio signal into a vacuum-tube valve amp... and the principles that make such a phenomenon possible.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Math is an abstraction running a casino is not. In other words, in practical terms probability in nature is not that abstract.

reply to post by Kashai


I agree with your statements regarding the concept of 'randomness'. You can say that there is no such thing as random, (besides maybe consciousness and subjective decisions, motions, and predictability and interpretation) because, All is governed by strict laws and order. So we can look at a star that produces mega loads of radiation every millisecond, and I can say all that radiation, is just randomly being shot out, in different directions, but I understand, step by step every electron and wave of radiation is being produced exactly when and as and where it ought to, according to the exact physical circumstances that manifested prior. So the idea of randomness is cancelled dealing with the deterministic nature of nature, if we had a mini tracking device on every single particle in the universe, and new all the laws of physics, it would all be predictable. But I think consciousness will does possess some power of randomness, in that you can not predict things that I am going to do.

Also I have came across that it is said the decay of atoms is random, though I think I may be misinterpreting that, im aware it may be that its just we cannot see and atom and perhaps measure when it was created, to predict then when it will decay, so it is just because of our ignorant position that it is random.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Taggart

 

the OP is intended as an exploration of this type of system, and how it might compare to a similar system which is described via quantum theory.... and some basic concepts about why one might be a better candidate than the other as a model for living systems and consciousness. the concept of "resonance" plays a vital role in the description of such a system.

What do you think the minimum requirements for consciousness are? I think its important to note the stability of galaxies, solar systems, and the supreme life span of stars, when thinking of consciousness. Or do you think it would be possible for something like consciousness to just manifest without a platform like a planet? The planets rotation and gravity well, and of course the fine tuned elemental reactions, produced an environment where lots of quantities of varying qualities could interact, with the ever pouring radiation of the sun. So that establishment is like an overarching set of the equation of life and consciousness, that stability, reminds me of those test tube shaker machines. Regardless these are very interesting topics and I hope we can continue perusing discussion.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I think you are applying consciousness a little too broadly. I would say consciousness is the awareness that life, and only life, has, while what you are trying to ascribe is just awareness. I would say that all things that react are aware - that is to say, all of energy is aware to differing degrees.

Also, you touched upon fractals in your earlier post. What would you consider to be the cause of them? I have something in mind, but I'm just wondering what everyone else's take on them is. (question open to all)

reply to post by ImaFungi


there are a couple of images (reposted below) at the logistic map wiki that i linked to a couple posts ago that i think speak appropriately to where (at what scale) in the universe we might expect to find appropriate conditions for the emergence of the systems we are discussing.

below, is a close up of the bifurcation diagram. it might be helpful, while you're looking at the image to think of it as an "infinite echo chamber". it is interesting to note that there are stages of relative stability and absolute instability. similarly, follow the link for the cobweb plot to see the thing in action.

i think that we may find that the universe functions similarly in that it begins with structures that are stable. and as the complexity increases, systems nested within systems, there is a moment where the whole thing explodes into (ordered) chaos. these same chaotic structures repeat over and over again, at larger and smaller positions in the map.... crossing and interacting with itself in unpredictable ways.

might the universe follow a similar trajectory? yes, i think that is likely.



cobweb plot

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I think you are applying consciousness a little too broadly. I would say consciousness is the awareness that life, and only life, has, while what you are trying to ascribe is just awareness. I would say that all things that react are aware - that is to say, all of energy is aware to differing degrees.

I do not think all material is aware. I think consciousness and awareness are closely linked, if not the same thing. Both terms imply an entity, a being, an 'I', an identity, a focal point of fed back information, a central intelligence agency, usually taking form in the way of a brain.

So wouldnt it seem like you are applying the terms to broadly, when you say that everything that exists is aware? So you are aware right? And so a rock is aware like you are aware? You are saying you could have been stuck being a rock for millions of years, just being aware of your, rockiness?

Also, you touched upon fractals in your earlier post. What would you consider to be the cause of them? I have something in mind, but I'm just wondering what everyone else's take on them is. (question open to all)

edit on 8/11/2013 by Bleeeeep because: reworded

The cause of fractals in my opinion would be 'limits', laws, order. There is not infinite chaos, there is not supreme messiness, there are not an infinite different types of atoms or subatomic particles. So because of the existence of parameters and limits, concepts, potentials, and patterns and expressions are produced in more then one circumstance. There needs to be stability for other stable layers to built on that, and built on that, and they all share the common realm of an ultimate reality, and so they are all forced to work with what they are, the physical conditions they are found in, and the physical laws which fate them into their interactions.

But yes, fractals like a river, lightning bolt, blood vessels, tree roots, veins of leaves, is very interesting.

Im sure wiki has a lot of info on fractals.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


fractals are a great topic, and very relevant to this thread. in my last post is a picture of the 'bifurcation diagram', which i have compared to an "infinite echo chamber". and also, i have mentioned that chaos is often linked to feedback of output to input.

i think you will see easily, in the video below, that simple energetic feedback forms self-oscillatory systems which are the perfect example of fractal, chaotic stability, bifurcation....

"resonance" in this context refers specifically to the "islands of stability" that emerge from the feedback oscillation.

reply to post by tgidkp


Cool, very cool. An interesting question perhaps would be; Could a universe, reality, or system/ultimate system, ever exist in any other way? We seem to perhaps agree that all that exists is; Order to greater and lesser forms, the lesser there of is termed chaos. Is it possible for 100% chaos to exist, or 100% order? What would that appear as? Could the system be dynamic if 100% order? Are there an infinite number of potential 100% ordered systems/universes? Do you get what im basically asking? Is there a hypothetical/theoretical/conceivable system, of energy, matter, (whatever that stuff is...)or anything else conceivable, that can potentially exist and be described as anything other then greater and lesser degrees of order? Anything that can exist that could qualify as neither order or chaos?