Is music an exact science? Anyone....
Fleetwoodoz
maths and music. This was the reply I got
ReBorN: Ritual how can music be a science? In maths 1+1=2 it doesn't matter
how you look at it 1+1=2. Look at any song and it is open to the artists
interpretation. example I play DKTW and I think it sounds good. I write it
down as an absolute. You come and play it as I have written it but it sounds
different. We both have the same musical instruments and both play as it was
written in the same time signature but it sounds different. why? because you
cannot interpret what I have written the way I make it sound unless you have
heard me play it. Otherwise all Beethoven symphonies would sound the same no
matter who plays them. I like to call the difference in sound color and
color makes the difference in music. Maths 1+1=2 Music 1+1=whatever you can
make it sound.
jim harris
philosophers who are materialists
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialism) and scientists who
are reductionists (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reductionism)
would like to think so
but they can't predict the weather five days ahead accurately let alone
"reduce" the phenomena of music to the "material" elements which might
constitute the mystery of music
although some aspects of it can be described mathematically and one could
seek to understand some element of it in scientific terms and through
scientific methods, so people make absurd statements like "music is an exact
science"
if someone is saying it is i suggest they go do a phd in the philosophy of
science and see what they think then
in anycase it'd be more interesting to ask whether an exact science is
music?
jim
"Fleetwoodoz" <fleet...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:424a...@news.comindico.com.au...
Rick Booth
> but they can't predict the weather five days ahead accurately let alone
> "reduce" the phenomena of music to the "material" elements which might
> constitute the mystery of music
> although some aspects of it can be described mathematically and one could
> seek to understand some element of it in scientific terms and through
> scientific methods, so people make absurd statements like "music is an exact
> science"
> if someone is saying it is i suggest they go do a phd in the philosophy of
> science and see what they think then
But that's not (weather) because the theory isn't well enough
understood, it's because you can't measure initial conditions well
enough, as last decade's buzzword chaos theory points out. Of course you
can't do the calculations quickly enough to be useful anyway, but that's a
different question.
- rfb, phd
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ May become hot when heated.
God, I'm so funny. People should be grateful when I talk to them, instead
of telling me to shut up, which happens too often to be coincidence.
-- Ashley Pomeroy, in the (void)
Steve
> I started a discussion about whether or not music is an exact science ie
> maths and music. This was the reply I got
>
> ReBorN: Ritual how can music be a science? In maths 1+1=2 it doesn't matter
> how you look at it 1+1=2.
No, 1+1 can equal 10
Steve
James Dore
st...@trolltec.co.uk says...
As in "There are 10 types of people in the world -
- Those who understand binary, and those that don't" ?
Cheers,
--
James Dore,
IT Officer,
New College
james.dore@new / it-support@new
Steve
> In article <424ac3f0$0$5474$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> st...@trolltec.co.uk says...
>
>>Fleetwoodoz wrote:
>>
>>>I started a discussion about whether or not music is an exact science ie
>>>maths and music. This was the reply I got
>>>
>>>ReBorN: Ritual how can music be a science? In maths 1+1=2 it doesn't matter
>>>how you look at it 1+1=2.
>>
>>No, 1+1 can equal 10
>
>
> As in "There are 10 types of people in the world -
>
> - Those who understand binary, and those that don't" ?
>
> Cheers,
That's it!
Steve
(Oracle IT consultant and all round database know-all and some time
budding Rock Star!)
Andy Bettis
> I started a discussion about whether or not music is an exact science ie
> maths and music. This was the reply I got
>
> ReBorN: Ritual how can music be a science? In maths 1+1=2 it doesn't matter
> how you look at it 1+1=2.
OK, if we're getting philosophical...
1+1=2 is true in an abstract mathematical space and it does indeed map
onto physical reality quite usably in most cases. However not in all -
one male rabbit plus one female rabbit can equal very many rabbits, one
lump of plutonium plus one lump of plutonium can equal a very large hole
in the ground. Perhaps in some theoretical system you could come up with
an 'exact science' of music but what would be the point? The scientific
method relates to reproducable results that...
... Oh! I see, it's about tribute bands. Perhaps you have a point.
Rev. Andy
jim harris
:)
> But that's not (weather) because the theory isn't well enough
> understood, it's because you can't measure initial conditions
this is the issue though yeah? the newtonian tradition of science which is,
correct me if i'm wrong, reductionist and materialist, would argue that if
you _could_ measure all the initial conditions of any system then you
_could_ predict the weather in advance, or taken to it's logical extreme the
entire course of all future events for the remaining duration of all things
in existence!
trouble is, for such cause/effect science, the _could_ is not demonstrably
possible ... so it's all a little fuzzy and some blasted moth flaps it's
wings too near a singularity and wham there goes 30 years of research!
fuzzy scientists, tehe :)
Jim - (BSc Hons, MA)
"Rick Booth" <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3avu22F...@individual.net...
> jim harris <li...@rock.com> wrote:
> > but they can't predict the weather five days ahead accurately let alone
> > "reduce" the phenomena of music to the "material" elements which might
> > constitute the mystery of music
>
> > although some aspects of it can be described mathematically and one
could
> > seek to understand some element of it in scientific terms and through
> > scientific methods, so people make absurd statements like "music is an
exact
> > science"
>
> > if someone is saying it is i suggest they go do a phd in the philosophy
of
> > science and see what they think then
>
> But that's not (weather) because the theory isn't well enough
> understood, it's because you can't measure initial conditions well
> enough, as last decade's buzzword chaos theory points out. Of course you
> can't do the calculations quickly enough to be useful anyway, but that's a
> different question.
>
> --
Matthew McGrattan
wrote:
>> - rfb, phd
>
>:)
>
>> But that's not (weather) because the theory isn't well enough
>> understood, it's because you can't measure initial conditions
>
>this is the issue though yeah? the newtonian tradition of science which is,
>correct me if i'm wrong, reductionist and materialist, would argue that if
>you _could_ measure all the initial conditions of any system then you
>_could_ predict the weather in advance, or taken to it's logical extreme the
>entire course of all future events for the remaining duration of all things
>in existence!
>
>
This notion, that given sufficiently detailed knowledge of the present
and sufficiently detailed knowledge of the laws of nature, that the
future would be entirely predictable is a pretty old notion.
It's most famously expressed by Laplace (the famous so-called
'Laplace's Demon'):
"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its
past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain
moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all
positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect
were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would
embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of
the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect
nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be
present before its eyes." (from Laplace's essay via Wikipedia)
Of course it didn't take 'chaos theory' to do for that notion. Quantum
physics -- under some interpretations at least -- did for it a long
time ago.
matt
Rick Booth
> > - rfb, phd
> :)
> > But that's not (weather) because the theory isn't well enough
> > understood, it's because you can't measure initial conditions
> this is the issue though yeah? the newtonian tradition of science which is,
> correct me if i'm wrong, reductionist and materialist, would argue that if
> you _could_ measure all the initial conditions of any system then you
> _could_ predict the weather in advance, or taken to it's logical extreme the
> entire course of all future events for the remaining duration of all things
> in existence!
As Matt's already pointed out, this is (sort of) undone by quantum
mechanics, but let's ignore that for a moment.
> trouble is, for such cause/effect science, the _could_ is not demonstrably
> possible ... so it's all a little fuzzy and some blasted moth flaps it's
> wings too near a singularity and wham there goes 30 years of research!
There's nothing fuzzy about it, actually. The dynamical system model
predicts that an arbitratily small change in the inputs will produce an
arbitrarily big change in the outputs, and that does seem to model the
actual system pretty well. There's nothing non-deterministic about it -
the deterministic model is completely adequate, and supports the
assertion that if you could measure the (weather) system precisely, you
could predict its future status precisely, but nobody has ever suggested
that such a thing was in practice doable.
Quantum effects are different, in that (if you believe the uncertainty
principle) measurements are not *even in principle* capable of being
taken precisely, and here your philosophical argument has a little more
force, though I would argue that there's nothing in quantum mechanics
that is actually non-deterministic - just non-measurable.
- rfb
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ May become hot when heated.
Pardon the colloquialism, but what the FUCK have you been eating
Adrian?! Well, I for one won't stand for it! I mean, *spiky*. For
FUCKS sake... -- Mr Clark disturbs Paul Simpson, in ukmg
Grant
> maths and music. This was the reply I got
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_science
"Exact science is knowledge so systematized that predictions and their
verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, or a rigorous logical
argument, are possible. Mathematics, natural sciences and applied sciences
are considered the exact sciences. Exact sciences are distinguished from the
social sciences on the one hand, and from the humanities, theology, the arts
on the other."
David Raleigh Arnold
> I started a discussion about whether or not music is an exact science
No. daveA
--
When practicing tech: Don't practice the scale, practice each note.
When practicing music: Don't practice each note, practice the music.
When practicing an etude: Practice the music and each note too.
The only technical exercises for all guitarists worth a lifetime
of practice: "Dynamic Guitar Technique". Nothing else is close.
Free download: http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
daveA David Raleigh Arnold dra..at..openguitar.com
Adrian Clark
"Fleetwoodoz" <fleet...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> ReBorN: Ritual how can music be a science? In maths 1+1=2 it doesn't matter
> how you look at it 1+1=2.
But one fish + one dog does not equal two dogfishes ;-)
Music *involves* an exact science (physics) but there's more to it than
that. Without the involvement of people and their individual personal
tastes and interpretations, music would just be vibrations.
Adrian
--
________________________________________________________________
http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk --- http://www.sfocata.co.uk
For offgroup communication: sfocata <squiggle> yahoo <ptang> com
Justin P
if it walks backwards....
"Adrian Clark" <real.a...@sigbelow.com> wrote in message
news:real.address-6EEA...@individual.net...
Fat Sam
> I started a discussion about whether or not music is an exact science ie
> maths and music. This was the reply I got
Music isn't a science...It's an art....
As an example....Take a handfull of artists and give them all the same
subject to paint....
Lets take for example, Tower Bridge in London....
They'll all produce a painting that represents and hopefully resembles
Tower Bridge....
Obviously some of them will be very similar to each other, but some will
be radically different, as the following 8 links prove....
http://www.art-and-artist.co.uk/main-gifetc/monet-carpenter-tb.jpg
http://www.art-and-artist.co.uk/main-gifetc/towerb2.jpg
http://www.boxhill.org/gallery/Tony%20Lockwood:%20Oil%20Landscape/Tower-Bridge.gif
http://www.boxhill.org/gallery/Tony%20Lockwood:%20Watercolour%20Landscape/Tower-Bridge.gif
http://www.watercolour-landscapes.co.uk/towerbridgelimed.jpg
http://www.ahmadtea.com/london/images/New%20Folder/TOWERBRI.jpg
http://www.artvilla.com/images/tower.jpg
http://www.artist-doug-carpenter.i12.com/main-gifetc/tower-bridge.jpg
Thus proving that art has got more to do with *freedom of expression*,
than it does with any *exact science*....
And if you don't believe that's true, just listen to any band that's
done a cover version....
Would you say that Kula Shakers cover of *Hush* was identical to Deep
Purple's original?....
Or would you say that Van Halens *Won't get fooled again* was identical
to the original by The Who?....
Does that sound like an exact science to you?....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
jh
> the deterministic model is completely adequate, and supports the
> assertion that if you could measure the (weather) system precisely, you
> could predict its future status precisely, but nobody has ever suggested
> that such a thing was in practice doable.
but doesn't that mean it isn't a scientific theory, i thought the two
irrefutable laws of science were "empiricism" ie measurement and
"reproducibility" ie repeatable experiementation. Determinism has and never
could be experiemntally, eh, determined
> Quantum effects are different, in that (if you believe the uncertainty
> principle) measurements are not *even in principle* capable of being
> taken precisely
is that the point of the cat in the box thingy? schrodinger?
>and here your philosophical argument has a little more
> force, though I would argue that there's nothing in quantum mechanics
> that is actually non-deterministic - just non-measurable.
am i correct in thinking that quantum mechanics deals in "probability"
rather than causality?
fascinating stuff the philosophy and sociology of science. I remember
reading Kuhn, all the stuff on paradigms.
You may have guessed by now that i'm a fuzzy (social) scientist :)
jim
Steve Dix
wrote:
>... imagine a fish that licks it's own balls.... or a dog that suffocates
>if it walks backwards....
>
You've met my sister's Staffordshire bull terrier then?
--
http://www.cdbaby.com/sinistrals http://sinistrals.stevedix.de/
http://www.mp3tunes.net/TheSinistrals http://www.stevedix.de/blog
http://www.snorty.net/ <st...@stevedix.de>
jh
"Justin P" <jus...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:G%B2e.281$4a2...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Rick Booth
> > the deterministic model is completely adequate, and supports the
> > assertion that if you could measure the (weather) system precisely, you
> > could predict its future status precisely, but nobody has ever suggested
> > that such a thing was in practice doable.
> but doesn't that mean it isn't a scientific theory, i thought the two
> irrefutable laws of science were "empiricism" ie measurement and
> "reproducibility" ie repeatable experiementation. Determinism has and never
> could be experiemntally, eh, determined
Well, that depends on whose philosophy of science you care to use, though
as far as I can tell the differences are more linguistic than anything.
Matt is the expert, being an actual philosopher.
What you're thinking of is this: to be meaningful, a scientific theory
has to (a) make predictions and (b) be falsifiable (based on those
predictions). Determinism is not, in that sense, a theory, but rather a
meta-theory, a philosophical position.
Newtonian physics, which is deterministic, *is* a theory in that sense -
which is what I think you mean. It is falsifiable (and indeed has been
falsified, in that its predictions under extreme conditions are noticably
incorrect - extreme conditions being where quantum mechanics and/or
relativity come in to play). and it makes a great many predictions.
Under the sort of conditions we actually encounter in the real world,
those predictions are tremendously useful - we couldn't run our
civilisation without them - and always correct.
It turns out that when you apply the theory and make predictions about
certain types of systems, of which the weather is one, you expect the
system to be chaotic - which is to say that near-identical starting
conditions produce wildly differing emergent behaviour. Incredibly
simple rules can do this - consider fractal patterns, the classic example
of chaos emerging from a very basic one-rule system. As such your
prediction would be that, say, the fact that the weather looks identical
today to how it looked on some other day won't tell you anything about
what it'll do in a fortnight. This does turn out to be the case, though
few people would regard it as a strong verification (not, in any case,
that Newtonian mechanics needs any more verification!).
> > Quantum effects are different, in that (if you believe the uncertainty
> > principle) measurements are not *even in principle* capable of being
> > taken precisely
> is that the point of the cat in the box thingy? schrodinger?
Not really, though it's often taken to be. Schroedinger's objection was
to the interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that, until a
measurement is taken, a particle is in all of its possible states. The
thought experiment results, under this interpretation, in a cat that is
both alive *and* dead, simultaneously, until you open the box, at which
point it immediately (and retrospectively) becomes one or the other.
Schroedinger felt that this was so clearly absurd as to invalidate that
(essentially philosophical) interpretation.
It's not actually reliant on the indeterminacy being quantum in nature,
though. You could equally talk about chaotic indeterminacy, and assert
that if you go indoors for a week in a room with no windows, the weather
is then in *all possible states* until such time as you open the curtains
and take a look outside [0], at which point it suddenly has been raining for
two days, or sunny for... etc.
> >and here your philosophical argument has a little more
> > force, though I would argue that there's nothing in quantum mechanics
> > that is actually non-deterministic - just non-measurable.
> am i correct in thinking that quantum mechanics deals in "probability"
> rather than causality?
Those are deep, deep waters, and largely depend on which interpretation
of quantum mechanics you choose.
> You may have guessed by now that i'm a fuzzy (social) scientist :)
Ah... so, to make your own point, not actually a scientist at all :).
- rfb
[0] Actually, you need all conscious observers to be in there with you.
It's a big room.
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ Add contents and stir.
There *must* be a way of getting him over here. I'll even pretend to be
a sweet-faced child dying of an incurable disease, if it'll help.
-- Adrian Clark trying to lure Mike Keneally, in ukmg.
jh
> > You may have guessed by now that i'm a fuzzy (social) scientist :)
well i'm a psychology postgrad
> Ah... so, to make your own point, not actually a scientist at all :).
steady, we've got rats and mazes, dogs and bells you know ;) so i'm a half
scientist
it's interesting that there's an "ician" in musician like there is in
"technician" but not in "artist", although either may be "artists"
it is interesting for that reason music, it can be such a perscribed,
discrete even logical system yet it creates/reflects/informs so much of our
emotional worlds.
jim
James Screaton
> fascinating, thanks rick
>
>
>>>You may have guessed by now that i'm a fuzzy (social) scientist :)
>
>
> well i'm a psychology postgrad
>
>
>>Ah... so, to make your own point, not actually a scientist at all :).
>
>
> steady, we've got rats and mazes, dogs and bells you know ;) so i'm a half
> scientist
I've got rats and cats and all sorts, but thats just at home !
> it's interesting that there's an "ician" in musician like there is in
> "technician" but not in "artist", although either may be "artists"
>
tartist ? :)
> it is interesting for that reason music, it can be such a perscribed,
> discrete even logical system yet it creates/reflects/informs so much of our
> emotional worlds.
>
Music is a personal interpretation, both for the player and the listener
- most men have enough trouble predicting what women are going to do
next, never mind what sort of music they like !
Cheers
James
Matthew McGrattan
wrote:
>jh <j...@spamjellyandicecream.offcom> wrote:
>
>> > the deterministic model is completely adequate, and supports the
>> > assertion that if you could measure the (weather) system precisely, you
>> > could predict its future status precisely, but nobody has ever suggested
>> > that such a thing was in practice doable.
>
>> but doesn't that mean it isn't a scientific theory, i thought the two
>> irrefutable laws of science were "empiricism" ie measurement and
>> "reproducibility" ie repeatable experiementation. Determinism has and never
>> could be experiemntally, eh, determined
>
>Well, that depends on whose philosophy of science you care to use, though
>as far as I can tell the differences are more linguistic than anything.
>Matt is the expert, being an actual philosopher.
>
>What you're thinking of is this: to be meaningful, a scientific theory
>has to (a) make predictions and (b) be falsifiable (based on those
>predictions). Determinism is not, in that sense, a theory, but rather a
>meta-theory, a philosophical position.
>
I agree with pretty much all of what Rick said.
Of course, one could argue that *some* level of determinism is a
necessary pre-condition for science even getting off the ground at
all.
You need your observations to involve some law-like regularities in
order for the whole practice of developing theories that make
predictions to even be a possibility.
That's not the same thing as determinism proper, obviously, since
there's nothing to stop us making probabilistic laws...
Matt
Frank A Muller
> As in "There are 10 types of people in the world -
>
> - Those who understand binary, and those that don't" ?
No, "Those who understand binary and the other nine." :-)
Frank A Muller
--
***************************************
If you feel the need to e-mail me
muller AT iinet DOT net DOT au