You cannot map it because you cannot precisely determine the state of the system. So my bad for saying it's possible to map. I should have said that there exists a mapping.
Of course even if you could know the initial (or final) conditions with whatever precision you require, it is insufficient to fully specify the system over time. Only a classical system has that attribute. Looking at it in block time, if QM is real then you also need to specify all intervening states. The theory/equations can be thought of as giving the correlations between those states, but you can have many different possible configurations of intervening states with the same initial/final state(s). The problem is that some people think the equations have somehow a reality of their own, as is implied by some interpretations. They are just a mathematical invention, a model that gives you constrains of how the physical states are correlated. This interpretation I find makes more sense, and is elaborated in the article I mentioned above.
Of course even if you could know the initial (or final) conditions with whatever precision you require, it is insufficient to fully specify the system over time. Only a classical system has that attribute. Looking at it in block time, if QM is real then you also need to specify all intervening states. The theory/equations can be thought of as giving the correlations between those states, but you can have many different possible configurations of intervening states with the same initial/final state(s). The problem is that some people think the equations have somehow a reality of their own, as is implied by some interpretations. They are just a mathematical invention, a model that gives you constrains of how the physical states are correlated. This interpretation I find makes more sense, and is elaborated in the article I mentioned above.
And before SY exercies his moderating powers, back on topic:
Thread starter:
BTW are any of the participants here interested in actually running such blind tests, or was this whole discussion generated simply because of the prize money involved?
Thread starter:
Can you post a pointer? More important, has this been confirmed elsewhere? Otherwise, this thread is useless.
BTW are any of the participants here interested in actually running such blind tests, or was this whole discussion generated simply because of the prize money involved?
Well, these rags are there to sell stuff. Plus, if various equiment really sounded the same, what would they write about? They'd have to make sh!t up.
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
Hi,
Maybe so...But what do you look for next if you can't measure a difference there?
Hmmm...Maybe you changed a cap where it wouldn't show up but I can assure that it does make for a measurable difference in FR.
LOL...Yeah...But then you're not supposed to colour those either.
Well then? What does that tell you?
No idea but "long" enough if I hear you...
In this particular case I suppose those "stones" are just a sideline of a company that specializes in a different field.
My point is however that if they (or some other tweek for that matter) didn't do anything at all, why bother to keep on offering it to the public?
Both mags are competitors, if one would publish total BS wouldn't you think it would constitute the competitors' wet dream and they'd jump all over them?
Same way you changed it first time 'round....
When you post you see these little menus on top with scroll down choices, first row on the right you see COLOR. Return it to whatever you want or leave the default (which says COLOR).
Cheers,😉
Maybe so...But what do you look for next if you can't measure a difference there?
Hmmm...Maybe you changed a cap where it wouldn't show up but I can assure that it does make for a measurable difference in FR.
LOL...Yeah...But then you're not supposed to colour those either.
Well then? What does that tell you?
No idea but "long" enough if I hear you...
In this particular case I suppose those "stones" are just a sideline of a company that specializes in a different field.
My point is however that if they (or some other tweek for that matter) didn't do anything at all, why bother to keep on offering it to the public?
Both mags are competitors, if one would publish total BS wouldn't you think it would constitute the competitors' wet dream and they'd jump all over them?
Same way you changed it first time 'round....
When you post you see these little menus on top with scroll down choices, first row on the right you see COLOR. Return it to whatever you want or leave the default (which says COLOR).
Cheers,😉
At last!
To think I'd almost given up reading this thread, when...
That's it! It's now abundantly clear that Thorsten thinks that he is god, or at the very least has a messiah complex (come to save us from the chains of common sense)
After all, he "knows" but does not "believe" (surely an indication of an omnipotent being), tells us that anything is possible and has invented a whole new dictionary based around English words that look the same, but have whatever meaning suits his argument at the time.
Not to mention the fantasy persona...
Sayonara indeed!
Kuei Yang Wang said:
To think I'd almost given up reading this thread, when...
That's it! It's now abundantly clear that Thorsten thinks that he is god, or at the very least has a messiah complex (come to save us from the chains of common sense)
After all, he "knows" but does not "believe" (surely an indication of an omnipotent being), tells us that anything is possible and has invented a whole new dictionary based around English words that look the same, but have whatever meaning suits his argument at the time.
Not to mention the fantasy persona...
Sayonara indeed!
Actually, I find Thorsten's posts refreshing, if not a bit over the top. ;-)
To me, the main point is to realize that the 'facts' that we learned in school and on the job are just 'approximations' of true reality. Just poor models of how the world works, that will be laughed at hundreds of years from now.
Where does this leave us now? Well, if you trust YOURSELF, and maybe your friends, you can try different things to see if you can or can't 'improve' your hi fi system, with them.
I, personally, have found that many, 'off the wall' tweaks have actually worked consistently for me, and I continue to use them. Try for yourself first, before laughing at it.
To me, the main point is to realize that the 'facts' that we learned in school and on the job are just 'approximations' of true reality. Just poor models of how the world works, that will be laughed at hundreds of years from now.
Where does this leave us now? Well, if you trust YOURSELF, and maybe your friends, you can try different things to see if you can or can't 'improve' your hi fi system, with them.
I, personally, have found that many, 'off the wall' tweaks have actually worked consistently for me, and I continue to use them. Try for yourself first, before laughing at it.
john curl said:
Very sensible advice. Why won't people just keep things as simple and honest as Mr. Curl does? Why do people distort truth or choose to remain ignorant? Why do they choose to have something satisfy their mind before they will allow it to reach their ears? Is it because they exalt their intellect above their other senses?
Arthur-itis:
You make worthy contributions to the board, but seem to have this eensy-teensy problem with quotes.
I started this thread some time ago to help people with this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11225
Please give it a look.
All you really have to do is substitute text where the dots are in the following arrangement:
That's it. Anything between "quote" in brackets and "/quote" in brackets appears in a "quote box". That's the box with the different background color. Just add some identifying info, such as "Quote Joe Schmoe:" beforehand, and you are all set.
Quote Joe Schmoe:
Get the idea? 🙂
You make worthy contributions to the board, but seem to have this eensy-teensy problem with quotes.
I started this thread some time ago to help people with this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11225
Please give it a look.
All you really have to do is substitute text where the dots are in the following arrangement:
PHP:
[quote]..........[/quote]That's it. Anything between "quote" in brackets and "/quote" in brackets appears in a "quote box". That's the box with the different background color. Just add some identifying info, such as "Quote Joe Schmoe:" beforehand, and you are all set.
Quote Joe Schmoe:
Get the idea? 🙂
john curl said:
Lovely perspective, John. I can't resist adding: those in the future will know how poor our models are but, because they will know their own models to be equally poor (how, after all, do you "advance" toward infinity), will perhaps see our inability to see how poor our models are as but our historical form of limit---no different, as a limit, to their historical limit, and thus the same. No need to laugh, therefore.
Wellfed said:
These are not rhetorical questions. Perhaps this site is loaded with answers to similar questions, but this one thread alone is massive reading. Any insight is appreciated, especially regarding my last question. I realize that intellect is not a "sense" per se.
Thanks for posting this link Cloth Ears. It looks like it will help me get a handle on some of the opinions people hold that have me puzzled.
Some models are better than others and some are worse. Consider Maxwell's equations. They're still being used with great success in things like EM simulators to accurately predict the performance of circuits out to 100 GHz and beyond. Not too shabby for a guy who figured this stuff out in the mid 1800s. With a little help from some friends of course - people like Gauss.
Will purveyors of audio quackery survive the test of time like Maxwell and Gauss did?
Will purveyors of audio quackery survive the test of time like Maxwell and Gauss did?
Actually Serengeti, at some point in the future, when Quantum computers finally become reality, we will be able to create astonishingly accurate models of almost anything.
There is going to be a point sometime in the next two hundred years, and probably much sooner, when scientists have determined by their experiments and observations of the universe a general theory that can be applied to all physics problems and explains everything, absolutely everything, with great precision.
We will then have plenty more to learn because knowing the basic physical laws is not the same thing as being able to comprehend the complexity of how things interact by means of the physical theories.
However, we will gradually add yet more and more complex machinery, including fully artificial intelligence, to our already vast array of investigative tools.
We will eventually know exactly how human hearing works, down to the molecular and even quantuum levels. We will understand exactly how the brain takes the signals from the ears, how the ears themselves preprocess the data, in the most astonishing detail. It will take fantastic machines to even model this, but they will probably exist.
Since we would know how the ears work at such a fine degree of granularity, it WOULD be possible at some point to assess the accuracy our hearing to know whether a X component has an effect on the sound. We would also have the ability to model the effect of x component so precisely that there would be a high degree of confidence in the results of these predictions, which would be considered reasonable "proof" by scientists.
It could be scary, because there will be a lot less room for blind faith. But it will also be like turning the lights on in a dark room, there will be all sorts of wonderful new things that we will be able to see and explore.
There is going to be a point sometime in the next two hundred years, and probably much sooner, when scientists have determined by their experiments and observations of the universe a general theory that can be applied to all physics problems and explains everything, absolutely everything, with great precision.
We will then have plenty more to learn because knowing the basic physical laws is not the same thing as being able to comprehend the complexity of how things interact by means of the physical theories.
However, we will gradually add yet more and more complex machinery, including fully artificial intelligence, to our already vast array of investigative tools.
We will eventually know exactly how human hearing works, down to the molecular and even quantuum levels. We will understand exactly how the brain takes the signals from the ears, how the ears themselves preprocess the data, in the most astonishing detail. It will take fantastic machines to even model this, but they will probably exist.
Since we would know how the ears work at such a fine degree of granularity, it WOULD be possible at some point to assess the accuracy our hearing to know whether a X component has an effect on the sound. We would also have the ability to model the effect of x component so precisely that there would be a high degree of confidence in the results of these predictions, which would be considered reasonable "proof" by scientists.
It could be scary, because there will be a lot less room for blind faith. But it will also be like turning the lights on in a dark room, there will be all sorts of wonderful new things that we will be able to see and explore.
I do not agree. In the hard sciences, even so called revolutions have started to become mere refinements, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the most fundamental of sciences, physics, where the old models remain useful as special case approximations to the newer theories. This suggests an asymptotic approach of our understanding to whatever model most accurately reflects reality (whether such a state is reachable or only approachable is another question). The oft made arguments that today's science will look to our descendents like the witch doctor's of our primitive ancestors are naive extrapolations. For example, very few theoretical physicists have any doubt that any future physical theory of the world will be quantum in nature.
Are you guys even remotely interested in Football? OK, so I'm starting to look like a troll here, I hope you will bear with me.
Actually your discussion fascinates me, but I simply don't have much of a clue as to what you're talking about. It's me, not you. You knew that, didn't you?
Actually your discussion fascinates me, but I simply don't have much of a clue as to what you're talking about. It's me, not you. You knew that, didn't you?
I also agree that new science isn't going to invalidate much of what we are already doing. It is just going to add to it.
Most of what Einstein's theories did not invalidate Newton or Maxwell, but merely added to them, and went on to explain things that they failed to cover, or even provided a more solid basis for the earlier theories.
The theory of everything, when it comes, is going to have elements that explain Einstein's theory, quantuum mechanics, and whatever else we have observed.
It is ever so interesting that new theorists are resurrecting some of Einstein's ideas, such as his cosmological constant which he rejected because he couldn't find a reason for using it, even though it helped solve a lot of his equations.
Now astronomical observations and the growing beleif that there is some sort of odd invisible "dark matter" in the universe, is finding ways to use this "mistake" and now there is a reason for using it.
Even now, people with a good grasp on current science can say with a high degree of confidence that there is no physical science that explains how the Shakti stones work, thus it is extremely improbable that they can have the claimed effects. Randi can be very confident that his money will be there for him when he retires.
Most of what Einstein's theories did not invalidate Newton or Maxwell, but merely added to them, and went on to explain things that they failed to cover, or even provided a more solid basis for the earlier theories.
The theory of everything, when it comes, is going to have elements that explain Einstein's theory, quantuum mechanics, and whatever else we have observed.
It is ever so interesting that new theorists are resurrecting some of Einstein's ideas, such as his cosmological constant which he rejected because he couldn't find a reason for using it, even though it helped solve a lot of his equations.
Now astronomical observations and the growing beleif that there is some sort of odd invisible "dark matter" in the universe, is finding ways to use this "mistake" and now there is a reason for using it.
Even now, people with a good grasp on current science can say with a high degree of confidence that there is no physical science that explains how the Shakti stones work, thus it is extremely improbable that they can have the claimed effects. Randi can be very confident that his money will be there for him when he retires.
geewhizbang said:
Yes, those future models will add X data points to our present models, moving us X steps closer to a goal defined as infinity.
With merely "great" precision? "Great" implies an approximation.
I agree. Always much more to learn. Now or in the future. In the future or in the future's future.
But down to the quark? Down to the _______ (insert name of future "particle"). Do you see where I'm going?
Speed the day!
I would like to be there. Sigh. Wait, I already am.
🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.