My Thermometer's Metaphysical Presence
Mounard le Fougueux
thermometer.
It said 94 Degress Fahrenheit. I had a button to convert between deg F
and Deg C. when I pressed it, it said 34.4 degrees Celcius.
The Difference was exactly 1/2.25 or .4444444.... degrees Celsius.
Close enough, I figure.
But, I then consulted the cannon of postmodernist mythos, and its said
the following:
"
The only way to stop this play of difference would be if there were what
Derrida called a 'transcendental signified' - a meaning that exists
outside language and that therefore isn't liable to this constant
process of subversion inherent in signification. But the transcendental
signified is nothing but an illusion, sustained by the 'metaphysics of
presence', the belief at the heart of the western philosophical
tradition that we can gain direct access to the world independently of
the different ways in which we talk about and act on it. With this
argument what came to be known as post-structuralism first took shape.
"
I pondered this for a moment (6 minutes, exactly), and decided, for the
moment, the following:
What isn't "transcendental"? Not much, except it sopposite.
What is the opposite of transcendental? The immanant (dasein) (non-divine).
Immanences signify (as in authorship). The signifiers are transcendental
only is there is a significand (the decoder of the transcendental
message). Without a significand, the immanent cannot become
transcendental. The significand is, of course, another immanence.
(Aren't yoy reading this?).
So
when I read my thermometer, the immanance of the instrumented world (the
pressure, average velocity, density of the air being measured) is able
to signify transcendantly (by temperature) to another immanence - me.
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Fougueux@theBlinkingCursor> wrote in message
news:XpednZb8tNcc7FbZ...@adelphia.com...
Einstein also attempted to disprove quantum theory at the sixth Solvay
Conference in 1930 with the "Clock in the Box Experiment". This involved a
box with a hole in one wall covered by a shutter which could be opened and
closed by a clock mechanism inside the box. The box also contained radiation
which would add to the weight of the box. The box would be weighed and then
at a given moment the clock would open the shutter allowing a single photon
of radiation to escape. The box could then be re-weighed, the difference
between the two weights telling us the amount of energy that escaped using
the formula e=mc2. Under the uncertainty principle it is not possible to
obtain an exact measurement of the energy of the released photon and the
time at which it was released. Einstein's experiment was designed to show
such exact measurements were possible, the clock measuring the time of
release of the energy and the weighing of the box disclosing the amount of
energy involved.
Bohr's reply involved looking at the practicalities involved in
making the required measurements. The box had to be weighed so it had to be
suspended by a spring in a gravitational field. To weigh the box it is
necessary to compare a pointer attached to the box against a scale. After
the photon had left the box weights can be added to the box to restore the
pointer to the same position against the scale as it had been before the
photon escaped. The weight added to the box gives the weight of the escaped
photon. However this involves a measurement of the box to ensure the pointer
is back at its original position. This measurement is subject to the
uncertainty principle concerning the position and momentum of the box which
brings uncertainty into the measurement of the weight of the box. If there
is uncertainty in the weight of the box, then there will be an uncertainty
in the energy of the released photon. There will also be uncertainty in the
time of the released energy as the speed of time depends upon the position
of a clock in a gravitational field. This position is uncertain then the
time of the release of the photon will also be uncertain. This means both
the time and the amount of energy released will be uncertain so Einstein's
thought experiment did not contradict the uncertainty principle. (Greenstein
& Zajonc, 1997,89-92).
Mounard le Fougueux
I'll reply first to the form and then tp what I consider the core of
your response's intent-
1a. the relationship between position and momentum (energy) in Quantum
Mechanics (QM) is EXACTLY the same as that betweeen time and frequency
for sound.
For a particular exact frequency, say 440 hertz, the frequency is exact
- a particular point onthe frequecy scale. But what is the time plot? a
sine wave which extends in time indefinately.
But what happens to the frequency when we constrict the duration of the
sine wave by, say, turning on and off the sine wave generator for
progressively shorter intervals? The frequency starts spreading. The
narrower the time envelope of the sine wave, the fatter the frequency
response of that sine wave is. Untill finally when the sinewave
duration is an impulse (a single sample point or a snap/click) then the
frequency response becomes completely a flat line incorpotating all
frequencies equally at a constant power level - that is, white noise.
The same uncertainty principle operates in the realm of sound
time/frequency as it does for Q.M. particle position/momentum - the
mathematical relationships are the same (The "Fourier Transform" or
complex exponential)
Does this mean that there is something UNCERTAIN about any paricular
sound? What it really means is that time and frequency of a sound cann't
be thought of as just two independant numbers but they have to be
thought of as two waveforms (functions) that are tightly related
(through the Fourier transform).
Similarly in Q.M., position of a particle and it energy CANN'T just be
thought of as just two completely independant numbers but are related
waveforms or functions (actually, wavefunctions).
The "uncertainty" is a clue that we are using inappropriate constructs;
when we insist on thinking of sounds as having a single frequency point,
then we have to live with time uncertainty of the spread in time (the
sounds duration). Similarly when we insist on thinking of particles as
having a single momentum point, then we will have to live with the
"uncertainty" of the particles position distribution.
1b. The two slit experiment where a particle (electron) is launched at a
screen with two slits is pretty cannonically used to empirically
motivate QM. The electron lands on the other side of the dual slit
screen, and in a single precise location each time. but rather than
behaving as if it whent through either one or the other slit it acts as
if it somehow went through both (but it in fact didn't). The lingo used
is that the electrons wavefunction is diffracted by both slits and then
the resultant wavefunction "collapsed" at the final detector.
The moral of the story is that where the electron ends up is NOT
determined by which specific slit it went through, but by the
possibliity of having two slits to go through.
The implication is that the electron doesn't have a local identity but a
global one defined by its context/constraints - which in this case are
the two slits and relative positions of the gun-in-front-of and the
detector-screen-behind the two-slit screen. The "positional identity" of
the electron in the experiment occurs only at the end of the experiment
when it is "forced to have one" by the detector.
As David Bohm tried to translate from physics to philosophy, objects in
physics don't have identities or properties that the objects somehow
embody locally independant of their environments, but conversely their
identities/properties depends in the most significant way upon the
global environment that they're in AND THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
POSSIBLE. Only at the end, when a measurement is made - does the single
number (position, energy , etc) get forced to be devulged by the
detector from the complex combination of all possiblities. This
measurement result is very different from the result one would expect if
the electron a priori had JUST ONE OF THE MANY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE
PRESELECTED FOR IT.
I suppose that there's a metaphore here for language - that an idea
(meme) that gets generated (authored) exisits in a (transcendant, if you
will) potentiality of possible meanings and interprations due to the the
cultural/technological/linguistic/contextual possibilties. But then a
"reader" decodes the message (makes an interpretive "measurement") based
on the combinations of interpretive possibilities (thereby "collapsing"
the text's interpretive wavefunction) - and never the quite the same way
twice.
The "Certainty" that is supposedly lost (with the "Uncertainty" of QM)
- that's the implication, isn't it? of a loss? - is in fact a loss of a
false and fatal certainty - a certainty that results in the ultraviolet
collapse of electrons into protons and the subsequent inability to
maintain stable forms of matter - such as quarks, atoms, molecules,
life, stars, black holes, m-branes, etc.
The last previous such loss of certainty was the loss of certainty of
the origin of life as described in the book of Genesis by Yahweh himself
(themselves?)- replaced by the uncertainty of natural selction and
evolution.
In my view Einstein didn't like QM precisely because of its global
character - he liked local effects - he transformed Newtons gravitaional
"action at a distance" to a local effect of warped space. QM is a return
to a more "global" view of nature. Less geometrical (Riemannian topolgy)
- more algebraic (Matrix Mechanics).
Einstein, who is referred to as a great interpreter of other peoples
ideas (the Michelson- Moreley's experiment, the Lorentz contraction)
himself couldn't follow through to see the implications of his own work
on the quantum photo electric effect. The irony of his Nobel Prize.
2. As mentioned previously, evolution and natural selection is also a
Globally determined identity in the sense that the identity of a
individual, a species, a tribe, etc is determined by the particular
environment (and its selection) and not by an inflexible and
predetermined identity of the individual.
In my view, evolution is a better model for language then the metaphor
of QM to language:
- Like DNA, language has a alphabet (C, G, A, T codons), words (genes),
ideas (chromosomes). etc.
- like DNA, language and ideas are capable of crosslinking (metaphores,
justaposition of ideas, difference)
- like DNA, language and ideas have the capability of mutation (aren't
stable).
- lust like DNA is expressed as proteins and life-forms (DNA's
"signified"). language and ideas get expressed as fashion, technology,
behaviour and priviledging of certain races and stereotypes - physical
as well as behavioural.
-like DNA, the seletion process is based on meme survival and
reproduction: the size of ones literary, cultural, artistic, political
or philosophical harem.
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Fougueux@theBlinkingCursor> wrote in message
My response hasn't got a *core* - or if it has then its been supplied from
elsewhere, i still do not consider it having a core - as if you or i could
burrow down to its origin and then rest - even the big bang cant have any
core as far as i can see- if such a static centre then why all this?
>
> 1a. the relationship between position and momentum (energy) in Quantum
> Mechanics (QM) is EXACTLY the same as that betweeen time and frequency
> for sound.
>
> For a particular exact frequency, say 440 hertz, the frequency is exact
> - a particular point onthe frequecy scale. But what is the time plot? a
> sine wave which extends in time indefinately.
If we are dealing with sound - then sounds occur in air - a far from static
or uniform substance, if we are dealing with some "ideal" then you can say
pretty much anything you like. Whether you can get a exact 440 hertz
infinite sound is IMO impossible- whether you can get an exact sine wave
given the texture of the substance your modulating - in this case
molecules - and whether given the mathematics of a sine wave you can - if
you can - then you will have an exact value of PI.
Such a sine wave seems very like a transcendental signified.
>
> But what happens to the frequency when we constrict the duration of the
> sine wave by, say, turning on and off the sine wave generator for
> progressively shorter intervals? The frequency starts spreading. The
> narrower the time envelope of the sine wave, the fatter the frequency
> response of that sine wave is. Untill finally when the sinewave
> duration is an impulse (a single sample point or a snap/click) then the
> frequency response becomes completely a flat line incorpotating all
> frequencies equally at a constant power level - that is, white noise.
>
Well i must admit to not following you here. From my practice a sine wave of
a given frequency is no different whatever its duration - theoretically i
suppose once the duration is less than the frequecy you don't get the full
sine wave... and short slices will sound like a click - but that's due to
the
jump in DC to wherever the sine wave begins - if zero then no click would
occur. So a single sample point at zero crossing will give you silence. -
As for all frequencies at a constant power level you should get a straight
DC signal. I've done this - any DC offset which isn't around zero produces
an
audible click - and interestingly will in certain cases damage audio
equipment and run down batteries on say a walkman.
> The same uncertainty principle operates in the realm of sound
> time/frequency as it does for Q.M. particle position/momentum - the
> mathematical relationships are the same (The "Fourier Transform" or
> complex exponential)
>
> Does this mean that there is something UNCERTAIN about any paricular
> sound? What it really means is that time and frequency of a sound cann't
> be thought of as just two independant numbers but they have to be
> thought of as two waveforms (functions) that are tightly related
> (through the Fourier transform).
>
> Similarly in Q.M., position of a particle and it energy CANN'T just be
> thought of as just two completely independant numbers but are related
> waveforms or functions (actually, wavefunctions).
I think there is a difference in that sound does not have the wave/particle
duality of QM.
>
> The "uncertainty" is a clue that we are using inappropriate constructs;
> when we insist on thinking of sounds as having a single frequency point,
> then we have to live with time uncertainty of the spread in time (the
> sounds duration). Similarly when we insist on thinking of particles as
> having a single momentum point, then we will have to live with the
> "uncertainty" of the particles position distribution.
That is nothing like the QM uncertainty in which the observer isn't neutral
etc etc.
>
> 1b. The two slit experiment where a particle (electron) is launched at a
> screen with two slits is pretty cannonically used to empirically
> motivate QM. The electron lands on the other side of the dual slit
> screen, and in a single precise location each time. but rather than
> behaving as if it whent through either one or the other slit it acts as
> if it somehow went through both (but it in fact didn't). The lingo used
> is that the electrons wavefunction is diffracted by both slits and then
> the resultant wavefunction "collapsed" at the final detector.
The whole point of the experiment is to show that diffraction patterns occur
when there are two slits. Taking an extreme case - firing an electron every
minute - you will get a diffraction pattern - yet you shouldn't - the
electron
as a particle is effected by the other slit- even though it does not pass
through it... QM resolves this by giving the electron a wave/particle
property which on the face of it is a contradiction. Compare this to sound
waves - a molecule of air is not transmitted at the speaker across the room
to my ear - but a wave is... no particles move away from the speaker...
>
> The moral of the story is that where the electron ends up is NOT
> determined by which specific slit it went through, but by the
> possibliity of having two slits to go through.
The puzzle is why opening a slit which the electron doesn't pass through
effects its final resting place.
But a reading might not do this but open up the text - produce ambiguity...
and the idea of decoding the text is a strange one - how? How does the
reader decode? It presupposes that they had an inbuilt set of tables with
which to decode...
>
> The "Certainty" that is supposedly lost (with the "Uncertainty" of QM)
> - that's the implication, isn't it? of a loss? - is in fact a loss of a
> false and fatal certainty - a certainty that results in the ultraviolet
> collapse of electrons into protons and the subsequent inability to
> maintain stable forms of matter - such as quarks, atoms, molecules,
> life, stars, black holes, m-branes, etc.
>
> The last previous such loss of certainty was the loss of certainty of
> the origin of life as described in the book of Genesis by Yahweh himself
> (themselves?)- replaced by the uncertainty of natural selction and
> evolution.
What about Zeno et al?
>
> In my view Einstein didn't like QM precisely because of its global
> character - he liked local effects - he transformed Newtons gravitaional
> "action at a distance" to a local effect of warped space. QM is a return
> to a more "global" view of nature. Less geometrical (Riemannian topolgy)
> - more algebraic (Matrix Mechanics).
>
> Einstein, who is referred to as a great interpreter of other peoples
> ideas (the Michelson- Moreley's experiment, the Lorentz contraction)
> himself couldn't follow through to see the implications of his own work
> on the quantum photo electric effect. The irony of his Nobel Prize.
>
> 2. As mentioned previously, evolution and natural selection is also a
> Globally determined identity in the sense that the identity of a
> individual, a species, a tribe, etc is determined by the particular
> environment (and its selection) and not by an inflexible and
> predetermined identity of the individual.
>
> In my view, evolution is a better model for language then the metaphor
> of QM to language:
> - Like DNA, language has a alphabet (C, G, A, T codons), words (genes),
> ideas (chromosomes). etc.
I dont think language has ideas?
> - like DNA, language and ideas are capable of crosslinking (metaphores,
> justaposition of ideas, difference)
> - like DNA, language and ideas have the capability of mutation (aren't
> stable).
> - lust like DNA is expressed as proteins and life-forms (DNA's
> "signified"). language and ideas get expressed as fashion, technology,
> behaviour and priviledging of certain races and stereotypes - physical
> as well as behavioural.
> -like DNA, the seletion process is based on meme survival and
> reproduction: the size of ones literary, cultural, artistic, political
> or philosophical harem.
>
>
And not on if its particularly true?
Mounard le Fougueux
[snip]
Thats precisely why I said "to what I consider the core of your
response's intent"
The "core" is in the eye of the beholder. More precisely, the core of a
statement is usually:
1. That part of the statement that is least understood by the audience -
which naturaly provokes a curiosity response. This could be intentional:
a provocatively crafted ambiguity, or deliberate use of known factual
error. Or it can be unintentional - mispelling, wrong use of idiom,
confidently talking about things without any knowledge.
2. That part of the statement which the audience finds insulting or
offensive - again, intentional or not. This will elicit a defensive ("I
know you are but what am I ....) response, independent of the actual
content ("payload") of a message.
3. It is almost always true that the part of the message that the author
spent the most time and effort at will never elicit a response (i.e.
will never be considered the "core" or "payload" of the message) because
the effort expended by the author usually results in reduced ambiguity
and increased coherence and tact.
In other words, the "core of a message, in the sense of "payload", can
be easily empirically determined not by analysis of the message itself
but by observing focus of the response to the message (analysis of a
message being another instance of a "response" - but by a "reviewer").
The fact that there can be completely different responses to the same
message (either by different readers, or the same reader at different
times, or even by a response (rewrite) by the author himself) shouldn't
be a suprise - it is similar to the QM evidence that the position
neasurement of an electron after passing through a multislit screen is
determined not by a property local to the electron but by the multiple
indistinguishable alternatives it has.
[splice]
i still do not consider it having a core - as if you or i could
> burrow down to its origin and then rest - even the big bang cant have any
> core as far as i can see- if such a static centre then why all this?
whose said anything about static? What's static about anything inthe
universe(s)? Except contrived models and metaphores that have no
resemblence to that which they model and metaphore?
Can one really find safety by invoking terms like "static" or "absolute"
in arguments?
>
>
>>1a. the relationship between position and momentum (energy) in Quantum
>>Mechanics (QM) is EXACTLY the same as that betweeen time and frequency
>>for sound.
>>
>>For a particular exact frequency, say 440 hertz, the frequency is exact
>>- a particular point onthe frequecy scale. But what is the time plot? a
>>sine wave which extends in time indefinately.
>
>
> If we are dealing with sound - then sounds occur in air - a far from static
> or uniform substance, if we are dealing with some "ideal" then you can say
> pretty much anything you like. Whether you can get a exact 440 hertz
> infinite sound is IMO impossible- whether you can get an exact sine wave
> given the texture of the substance your modulating - in this case
> molecules - and whether given the mathematics of a sine wave you can - if
> you can - then you will have an exact value of PI.
>
> Such a sine wave seems very like a transcendental signified.
Curling up into a armadillo ball protected by plates of armour made of
pomo jargon isn't very charming of you.
True, a sine wave is a transcendental number, as commonly defined
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TranscendentalNumber.html
What a clear definition of "transcendental" is as used in "theory", I am
unaware.
It is also true that a sine wave, by itself, is unrealizable: everything
in the real world (anything "contructable") must have a beginning and
and end; a sine function has neither.
Inthe real world the sine function is modulated (amplitude, frequency,
phase, etc). We were talking about puse modulation.
You mentioned that if the width of a sine wave is narrower than a
wavelength, then the frequency is ambiguous (a click).
However frequency ambiguity isn't eliminated if the width of a sine wave
is greater then 1 wavelength, the ambiguity just gets smaller. You get
interger number of wavelength PLUS fractions of wavelengths. These
fractions of wavelengths (just like the fraction of wavelength in the
case where the sound duration is LESS then 1 wavelength) is the
ambiguity of frequency. The only time you have ZERO ambuguity is when
the sine wave is infinate in both +time and -time extents - then there
are only an (infinite) number of integer wavelengths and ZERO fractional
wavelengths.
The actual relationship between sine wave duration and frequency is the
sinc() function:
http://www.med.harvard.edu/JPNM/physics/didactics/improc/intro/fourier3.html
The main Lobe of the sinc() functioninthe frequency domain gets larger
as the sine duration gets smaller.
This is excatly the same relationship as heisenbergs uncertainty
principle - it is the consequences of the WAVE nature of particles.
The major difference of the fourier transform of sound and the
heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics is the particulars of the
the laws of quantum physics: namely that the energy of the particel wave
is proportional to its freqency by he proportionality constant 'h'
(plancs constants) whereas in acoustics (or signal processing in
general) the energy of a wave is independant of its freqency but is
related to its amplitude.
The best and most accessible into to QM is "Feynman's Lectures on
Physics", Vol 3, chapter 2.
As I mentioned about, the relationsship between time and frequency for
ANY wave (including sound) is mathematically the same as that between
positiona and momentum in quantum mechanics - the uncertainty principle.
There are differences betweenthe two, but not here.
>
>
>>The "uncertainty" is a clue that we are using inappropriate constructs;
>>when we insist on thinking of sounds as having a single frequency point,
>>then we have to live with time uncertainty of the spread in time (the
>>sounds duration). Similarly when we insist on thinking of particles as
>>having a single momentum point, then we will have to live with the
>>"uncertainty" of the particles position distribution.
>
>
> That is nothing like the QM uncertainty in which the observer isn't neutral
> etc etc.
>
>
>
>>1b. The two slit experiment where a particle (electron) is launched at a
>>screen with two slits is pretty cannonically used to empirically
>>motivate QM. The electron lands on the other side of the dual slit
>>screen, and in a single precise location each time. but rather than
>>behaving as if it whent through either one or the other slit it acts as
>>if it somehow went through both (but it in fact didn't). The lingo used
>>is that the electrons wavefunction is diffracted by both slits and then
>>the resultant wavefunction "collapsed" at the final detector.
>
>
> The whole point of the experiment is to show that diffraction patterns occur
> when there are two slits. Taking an extreme case - firing an electron every
> minute - you will get a diffraction pattern - yet you shouldn't - the
> electron
> as a particle is effected by the other slit- even though it does not pass
> through it...
What you just stated here is wrong. It is WRONG to say that the
diffraction pattern occurs because the electon passes through one slit
but NOT the other. Any experiment where one tries to observe WHICH slit
the electron goes through collapses the entanglement between the
electron and BOTH slits and the interference pattern dissappears.
There is no way to priviedge one slit over the other (in ANY way) and
maintain entanglement (interference). Therefore it is INCORRECT to say
that the electron goes through one slit and not the other. Thats all
physics has to say on this subject. Its starts with this empirical fact,
like it or not. It is also why QM is so cool, empirically based,
difficult and misunderstood.
QM resolves this by giving the electron a wave/particle
> property which on the face of it is a contradiction. Compare this to sound
> waves - a molecule of air is not transmitted at the speaker across the room
> to my ear - but a wave is... no particles move away from the speaker...
>
>
>>The moral of the story is that where the electron ends up is NOT
>>determined by which specific slit it went through, but by the
>>possibliity of having two slits to go through.
>
>
> The puzzle is why opening a slit which the electron doesn't pass through
> effects its final resting place.
Again, it is INCORRECT to talk about the slit the electron doesn't go
through when there is entanglement! It is also INCORRECT to say that the
electron goes through BOTH Slits!
In other words, one MUST accept the rules of play that are empirically
given to you and NOT bring the baggage of metaphors from other areas of
human behavior (like throwing balls through holes in fences).
See above
> and the idea of decoding the text is a strange one - how? How does the
> reader decode? It presupposes that they had an inbuilt set of tables with
> which to decode...
>
The reader doesn't decode. It is decoded for him.
In other words, although "you" read this and understand what I'm
"saying" you don't have the faintest idea how this happens. There are
clearly other "agents" at work who do all the hard work and know how,
when and why to do what they do so well.
Just like when you dicide to get up and walk across the room, you have
no idea how you accomplished any of that (which muscles received what
nerve impulses, etc).
This is why Searle's chinese room experiemnt is so bogus. A person who
understands chinese and can translate between chinese and english
doesn't have any better idea of what he's doing then a room full of
people, none of who know english or chinese, but follow a proceedure to
carry out the translate process, blindly.
The idea that we, as talented individuals, are any less blind is just a
false conceit.
Do you belive that neurons have ideas?
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" > [snip]
>
> Thats precisely why I said "to what I consider the core of your
> response's intent"
>
> The "core" is in the eye of the beholder.
But if no core was in the eye of the sender then we might have a problem?
>More precisely, the core of a
> statement is usually:
> 1. That part of the statement that is least understood by the audience -
> which naturaly provokes a curiosity response. This could be intentional:
> a provocatively crafted ambiguity, or deliberate use of known factual
> error. Or it can be unintentional - mispelling, wrong use of idiom,
> confidently talking about things without any knowledge.
I think the core of statements like "No Smoking" is none of the above...
which make up a good deal of statements..
> 2. That part of the statement which the audience finds insulting or
> offensive - again, intentional or not. This will elicit a defensive ("I
> know you are but what am I ....) response, independent of the actual
> content ("payload") of a message.
If the message has a "payload" - ahy isnt that the core?
> 3. It is almost always true that the part of the message that the author
> spent the most time and effort at will never elicit a response (i.e.
> will never be considered the "core" or "payload" of the message) because
> the effort expended by the author usually results in reduced ambiguity
> and increased coherence and tact.
>
> In other words, the "core of a message, in the sense of "payload", can
> be easily empirically determined not by analysis of the message itself
> but by observing focus of the response to the message (analysis of a
> message being another instance of a "response" - but by a "reviewer").
This third person is a kind of neutral judge- but then their problem is that
any message will have different effects over time- and across genre's - plus
the third person has to interpret the response(s) which they may be
inacapable of doing. In effect they see the response as a "statement" then
again their reaction needs to be observed by observer #4 ... etc ... etc.
If we take "No Smoking" - the authors core idea might be
1. I dont like smoke
2. Its against the law
3. Its dangrous in this area due to flamable vapours...
Whatever the reactions of any set of observers to reactions to the message
is - re the core - besides the point is it not.
>
> The fact that there can be completely different responses to the same
> message (either by different readers, or the same reader at different
> times, or even by a response (rewrite) by the author himself) shouldn't
> be a suprise - it is similar to the QM evidence that the position
> neasurement of an electron after passing through a multislit screen is
> determined not by a property local to the electron but by the multiple
> indistinguishable alternatives it has.
No - as the "No Smoking" sign - say in a petroleum refinery has a quite
definite and different one to a similar sign in a Public House.
>
> [splice]
> i still do not consider it having a core - as if you or i could
> > burrow down to its origin and then rest - even the big bang cant have
any
> > core as far as i can see- if such a static centre then why all this?
>
> whose said anything about static? What's static about anything inthe
> universe(s)? Except contrived models and metaphores that have no
> resemblence to that which they model and metaphore?
>
> Can one really find safety by invoking terms like "static" or "absolute"
> in arguments?
Perhaps..
[...]
> >
> > If we are dealing with sound - then sounds occur in air - a far from
static
> > or uniform substance, if we are dealing with some "ideal" then you can
say
> > pretty much anything you like. Whether you can get a exact 440 hertz
> > infinite sound is IMO impossible- whether you can get an exact sine wave
> > given the texture of the substance your modulating - in this case
> > molecules - and whether given the mathematics of a sine wave you can -
if
> > you can - then you will have an exact value of PI.
> >
> > Such a sine wave seems very like a transcendental signified.
>
> Curling up into a armadillo ball protected by plates of armour made of
> pomo jargon isn't very charming of you.
I cant see the PoMo jargon - but pomo jargon is never protective- i'm simply
saying that sine waves - real ones - have properties etc.
>
> True, a sine wave is a transcendental number, as commonly defined
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TranscendentalNumber.html
>
> What a clear definition of "transcendental" is as used in "theory", I am
> unaware.
>
> It is also true that a sine wave, by itself, is unrealizable: everything
> in the real world (anything "contructable") must have a beginning and
> and end; a sine function has neither.
>
> Inthe real world the sine function is modulated (amplitude, frequency,
> phase, etc). We were talking about puse modulation.
>
> You mentioned that if the width of a sine wave is narrower than a
> wavelength, then the frequency is ambiguous (a click).
>
Only at high frequencies - a part of a 1 htz sine wave will be "seen" if
you watch the speaker cone - as a movement...
Any sound in air will not be mathematically a sine wave- mathematics and the
observed world seem different ...
That's not what i'm saying. ....
Your confusing decoding - i decode the text "brown cow" and arrive at the
image required- the construction of the text - ink - electrons -
molecules - electromagnetic waves are beside the point - when i send the
text "brown" cow - across the internet several layers of decoding takes
place- some of which are very clear...
> There are
> clearly other "agents" at work who do all the hard work and know how,
> when and why to do what they do so well.
>
> Just like when you dicide to get up and walk across the room, you have
> no idea how you accomplished any of that (which muscles received what
> nerve impulses, etc).
>
>
> This is why Searle's chinese room experiemnt is so bogus. A person who
> understands chinese and can translate between chinese and english
> doesn't have any better idea of what he's doing then a room full of
> people, none of who know english or chinese, but follow a proceedure to
> carry out the translate process, blindly.
It's worse - we know how the blind translation works - but not the other...
the problem is how we give the non english/chinease speaking people the
rules in the first place.
>
> The idea that we, as talented individuals, are any less blind is just a
> false conceit.
>
sure
.
[..]
> >
> > I dont think language has ideas?
>
> Do you belive that neurons have ideas?
>
No - or do atoms... I dont think atoms have a consciousness and pocket
watches so know when to decay...
Mounard le Fougueux
The payload of a message cann't be precisely determined by either the
message itself or by the intend of the message genorator - because
neither of these (the message construct or the intent) is precise due to
inherent "uncertainties" built into the system which cann;t be
eliminated without destrying the entire communications system.
Therefor the payload MUST be determined by its effect - i.e. by the
interpretor.
What Mel Gibsom's actual statement was or what its intents was did not
determine the payload of the message, but instead the listener and more
importantly the rest of the observers of that message (media
comentators, Abe Foxman of the ADL).
This isn't right. To view the spectrum of an audio signal you need an
audio spectrum analyzer which takes sound (samples versus time) and
redisplays it a spectrum (power verssus frequency). There's an infinite
number of such ausio analyzers available for downlaod from the web, most
with free eval periods - a single example:
http://www.download3000.com/download_6856.html
It very easy to switch the outut of a microphone or audio device
(cd-player) into the analyzer using standard windows audio controls.
The analyzer displays the FFT (Fast-Fourrier Transform) of the audio signal.
I used these analyzers all the time to "look at" music - for example
i've looked at the evolving spectrum of Jliat's " The Nature of Nature"
using a free audio spectrum analyzer. Some people listen to pictures, I
look at music.
If you were to look at the spectrum of a sinple click (from, for
example, very quickly making and breaking a microphone lead (similar to
momentaily touching a speaker wire to a speaker terminal)) you will see
that the FFT spectrum of a sample frame with a short "Click" is very
wide in frequency spectrum (even though it is only a change between two
DC levels).
The frequency content of a sinewave fragment DOES depend on the fragment
duration. You will see that the shorter the fragment, the wider the
spectrum.
The whole issue of musical fidelity is based on this - higher fidelity
audio equipment has higher bandwidth to better replicate the original
(short duration) sound transients.
A real good practical example is the following:
If a sound, which is a single frequency of a particular duration (Say,
Td) is filtered by a filter (an equilizer is a coarse version of such a
filter) whose bandwidth is narrower then that required by the original
frequency PLUS its frequency spread caused by its duration (in this case
the frequency spread due to duration is the inverse of duration - of
Delta f = 1/Td) and then to play the FILTERED sound, the duration of the
sound would have CHANGED - it would have gotten LONGER - this is because
the filter further reduced the frequency spread of the signal from its
original which means it lengthened the duration of the signal - which is
easily measurable.
Fortunately with Windows XP its very easy to perform audio signal
processing on a PC - especially using MS DirectX based sw (originallt
intended or games for the Xbox).
Mathematics is observation.
Physics is considered empirical BECAUSE of the mathematics used in
physics. Experiments cann't be performed without the measurement and
language of mathematics.
When you ask me what its feels like outside I can say:
a.) not too hot .. ok, I guess.
or I can say
b.) The temperature is 33.5 Degrees C with a relative humidity of 50%
with a wind speed o 30kmh from the SSW.
Which seems more empirical? Which seems more verifiable? which seems
more mathematicsl? Coincidence? I think not!
Onthe other hand, one can say "sound in air is different then a
mathematical sine wave" which I guess is like saying "I am different
from my name or any other description or observation of me". But since
"there's nothing outside the texte", what's the point?
I suppose the point is that the observation is the payload. More
precisely the being or essence of anything is external rather than
internal to it.
The nature of a sound in a room is not due to any single air molecule
but to the room dimensions and the temperature and average density of
the air which in turn constraints the dominant resonance patterns of air
pressure WAVES in that particular room.