Re: RE Lobian Machine

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:36:32 -0800 (PST)

Kim, I tried to stay out of this line which produced a
level of vulgarity I never experienced on a civilized
list (not that it disturbs me, but it is a very low
scientific argumentation IMO).
Also I apologize if I mix your words with Jose's,
those > and >> lines are perplexing sometimes. Hard to
tell who quotes whom.
*
I started to play (classical) music in 1927 - mostly
piano. I kept up with it while doing natural science
(R&D) for ~ 50 years .
As a still performing musician I try to respond to
your challenge:
Music does not represent 'reality', although it is
part of it (as Stephen said: maybe an infinitesimal
part). It happens within a different "plane" from
mathematics (incl. emotional), it has allowences you
would never condone in math, it has emotional motives
what are disallowed in math-discipline. True, you
need to have learned to 'know' music, but
"understanding" it means: you are not a musicioan,
rather a musical scientist.
Different performers can play the same piece so
differently that a mathematical-type mutual coverage
is out. Physics or computer sci can catch the
technicalities, not "the music".
So I would not formulate into the 'total' from a
minuscule part.
Especially not if that part is not entirely 'part' of
that so called total, which is only a model (topically
etc. identified and limited). Art moves in qualia
different from mathematically identified?able
rationalized aspects of pour logical domains.
Besides: music (as we know the western artform) is
decaying to nonexistence after its 3-4 centuries in
the European culture.
Would you include the African drums, the Oriental
1/4-tone tunes, the "native American" hummings etc. in
your term of "music"?

John M

--- Kim Jones <kimjones.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> So apparently those who do not scale the dizzying
> heights of
> metamathematics have no hope of understanding
> reality?
>
> Try again, Jose.
>
> Try MUSIC
>
> Music is a form of mathematics which I DO
> understand. I wonder how
> many great mathematicians on this list have an
> understanding of the
> structure of that little piece of Platonia? I am
> trying to see the
> link between this and metamathematics. Some people
> have agreed
> (privately) with me that there is a link. I am not a
> mathematician,
> true. For that reason I make no attempt to deal with
> this language
> but use the musician's intuitive feeling for reality
> which is highly
> refined in terms of my own 1st person experience.
>
> There will come a time very soon when all of this
> comp stuff will
> need to be translated into terms the LAYman can
> understand easily.
> Russell Standish has already made the attempt. I
> appreciate gratly
> his attempt. Stop wanking off that mathematics is
> the ONLY script in
> which reality is encoded. It could well turn out to
> be music.
>
> Somebody (with enough musical understanding) prove
> me wrong
>
> Kim Jones
>
>
>
> On 31/12/2005, at 12:45 PM, Jose Ramón Brox wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kim Jones" <kimjones.domain.name.hidden>
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > That was a real bit of pure pseudomathematical
> nonsense
> >
> > Jose Brox
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 31 2005 - 15:04:11 PST