Re: Time for some humble pie...


<soundhaspriority@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144718654.348976.207480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sander deWaal <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steven Sullivan <ssully@xxxxxxxxx> said:


Your 'experience' is nothing unusual. You changed something; you
'heard' a difference; you concluded the difference was real and was
due
to the change you made. It's typical lousy logic that ignored other
possible conclusions, and it's worthless as proof, given the way you
'tested'
the tweak.


This is exactly the same as someone telling here that amplifier X is
sounding so much better than amplifier Y.

Except that there are credible reasons why one amp could really sound
different
from another, founded in normal physics and engineering.

AND YET.... Arny and other so-called "objectivist audiophiles" keep
touting the notion that amplifiers, when operated within their
specifications and properly functioning, can not be told apart under
ABX conditions. Isn't that what all the hoo-ha with Zipser was about?


For him, that is true.
No need to prove anything, as it is his perception.

Which may have only a glancing relations to reality.

Except they don't. They've already been perceived by people who
didn't know they were in place.

That's magical
thinking for you.

No, "magical thinking" is believing the world starts and ends with that
which you can measure.

Yep, and the only thing I'd say to you would be "Congrats! Enjoy your
newfound consciousness and audio system!"

Thanks, now, quick, hand me some more of that Kool Aid!

God, drink up and die already! With all this Kool Aid and shooting
yourself, why do you keep popping your face back here?

If you can define "rational" for me, then I can answer that question.

How about we start with : how would you determine if anything *wasn't*
true?

Oh, I know that one! That's easy. You listen. If you don't hear a
different, it isn't true.

I'm still an EE, I can still calculate Ohm's law, and I can still
manage not to burn myself with my soldering iron.

Why bother with all that 'law' stuff? If you believe in some
other relationship between volts to ohms to amps, go for it! Build
your gear based on that! Just so long as it makes you feel good!

Well obviously, you're irrational, so thank you, you've just
defined it for us.

Well, you'd 'gain' something by a full-blown florid psychosis,
by that definition.

Sounds like you already have the psychosis.


Have you considered that perhaps the tweak has no real effect?
If you found that to be true, would it amount to a gain in wisdom?

Now the reverse. Have you considered that perhaps the tweaks HAVE a
real effect?
And if you found that to be true, would it amount to a gain in wisdom?
I doubt it. You're a very unwise person, Sullivan.


That some things are all in your mind? ( This isn't like watching a TV,
btw. THere are ways to demonstrate that turning on the telly really
does change what it puts out visually. )

ALL things are all in our minds, Sullivan. What you don't know about
science and the world around us, would fill 1,000 NY Public Libraries.
And that would just be the section on quantum mechanics that you
don't know about. Whether you see an object or visualize that same
object, your brain can't tell the difference between the two, it
processes the information the same. We create our reality, it's all
in the mind. Stop complaining about it and learn to deal with it
already.

My evil twin actually knows nothing about quantum mechanics, except to
invoke it to explain the unreasonable or ridiculous. Quantum mechanics is a
closed axiomatic system akin to Euclidean plane geometry. Quantum mechanics
is not an ontological theory. In other words, it explains nothing about the
universe, it's origins, or how it works. The distinction is lost on my evil
twin. The only validity of quantum mechanics is, that when mapped correctly
onto a physical system, it predicts numbers that can be verified repeatably
by experiment. Unfortunately, frauds exploit the mystery of quantum
mechanics to wrap their own obfuscations, as in, "quantum mechanics is
inherently incomprehensible, hence, I justify a dubious assertion by
reference to it." In reality, such frauds are no deeper than the adverts
that blast 'AS SEEN ON TV."

The notion that we create our own reality is a cute one, but it is a vast
and currently unjustifiable leap from the questions of the Solvay
conference. It is certainly true that consciousness has not, and may never,
be integrated into the framework of "causal reality." However, my evil twin
appears to have leaped to the conclusion that reality is subject to our free
manipulation. Individuals who have used hallucinogenic drugs, particularly
LSD, have experienced extreme perceptual warping. On occasion, such
individuals have committed self destructive acts, such as jumping out of
windows, or off rooftops. When the person hits the ground, their perception
of a different reality is broken, along with alot of bones. Is this a
drastic form of the "correspondence principle"? I think not, but this is not
the real issue. The real issue is that we may exist as beings restricted to
subspaces of both action and thought. If we are so restricted, then we are
not privileged to answer the question. In fact, such searches would be
doomed to circularity.

These are very grave questions. It's a preposterous joke that a breakthrough
in understanding the role of the "observer", as noted by the Solvay
Conference, would come in the form of a green cream one smears on audio
equipment. These are questions of very existence, of ontology, of every
aspect of our universe large and small. Black holes the mass of three
billion suns run according to the hidden answers to and of ontology. Are we
to believe that some proprietor selling green cream (without any explanation
as to how it works, except the words "quantum mechanics, As Seen on TV,
Quantum TV"), has found how to manipulation of reality to better our
pleasure? NOT. These are traps for the gullible and stupid. Don't give your
money to my evil twin; use it for good purpose.

SHP (good twin)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Original Sin
    ... explains why the only possible implication of quantum mechanics is ... that consciousness creates reality is "Quantum Enigma: ... Encounters Consciousness" written by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, ... solution to these paradoxes has been found, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Modern physics and refutation of nihilism
    ... >claim that life is an illusion; that all things, ... >world that creates our reality, and that anything in our lives - the ... New Agers abuse quantum mechanics and relativity, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Modern physics and refutation of nihilism
    ... >claim that life is an illusion; that all things, ... >world that creates our reality, and that anything in our lives - the ... New Agers abuse quantum mechanics and relativity, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physics as learning computer language (and infinite orgasms)
    ... You have to learn the syntax, format, algorithm, etc. ... It has almost no relation to understanding reality. ... and supported by Quantum Mechanics. ... Most such people don't know enough physics to go crazy from. ...
    (sci.physics)