Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Now being unable to answer my point about the IMPOSSIBILITY and UNSCIENTIFIC attitude which consist as you did and trying to convince others that a small linear set of electrical measures from Fourier Maps are the only OBJECTIVE way to qualify audio audible impressions QUALITIES, because if not , they are anyway "illusions" or artefacts we must eliminated by blind test, this techno babble ideology has nothing to do with psycho-acoustic as demonstrated CLEARLY not only by the results of Oppenheim and Magnasco but by the way they constructed their experimental protocol to demonstrate the way the ears/brain do not compute mere Fourier maps but perceived REAL QUALITATVE INFORMATION FROM THE REAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT in his time dependant domain and extract this information essential for his survival in a non linear way...

What is your answer and argument AGAINST this fact ?

Instead treating me like a deluded idiot you set me a childish trap with a paradox in quantum theory...

If i explain to you the solution , you will not be able to UNDERSTAND it...

I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox , and i will suggest to you first TWO solutions at this paradox, one in non commutative geometry by Alain Connes about TIME in this video : "the shape of music."...and i will briefly resume it :"The thermal time hypothesis has been put forward as a possible solution to this problem by Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes, both in classical and quantum theory. It postulates that physical time flow is not an a priori given fundamental property of the theory, but is a macroscopic feature of thermodynamical origin.^{" For clarity i will add this "}The thermal time hypothesis predicts that the ratio of the observer's proper time to his statistical time – the time flow that emerges from Connes and Rovelli's ideas – is the temperature he measures around him. It so happens that every event horizon has an associated temperature."

^{there exist another solution which do not contradict this one but complement it but you are not able to understand it sorry ... it is in the Book by the physicist} Anirban Bandyopadhyay; Nanobrain or how to make an artificial brain with time crystals...

Now instead of playing with me as an idiot ANSWER WHY MY OBJECTION TO YOUR REDUCTION OF AUDIBLE QUALITIES TO ELECTRICAL FOURIER MAPS OF ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS IS WRONG ?

Let me ask you to ponder this: as something achieves speed of light, time for it stops relative to us who are stationary (Einstein’s theory of special relativity). In that regard, a photon of light that has been traveling for billions of years since the big bang, gets to our eyes in an instant, as far as the consciousness of the photons is concerned. At one moment it is at big bang and at the very same moment, it hits your eyes through a telescope! Do you understand the ramifications of this for fidelity of audio?

Why asking ? Is it not evident i am an idiot ? 😊

i know how to read...Prove me wrong...

i am interested by links between fields, cracks between theories..

My most important reflection subject was the links between semiotic and linguistic..

I am interested by number theory meanings for philosophy...

I am interested by the way the Temple of Louxor was designed..

I am interested by the meaning of the poetic act speech...

I am interested by categoey theory in the approach of Alexander Grothendieck...

i am interested by the links between all that and more..

i like Dyonysos the areopagite the syrian mystic and the link between his three methods and set theory through Cantor works ... i studied it for 10 years...

Etc.. I am interested by the morphology of mammals and the Goethe method in the work of the physicist Henri Bortoft...<

I am interested by The work of Swedenborg about reality and quantum theory... i dont understand for now the link with Roger Boscovich...

i am interested bby READING and THINKING...

I am interested by the difference and similarity between Goethe more oriented perceptual phenomenology and Husserl more oriented conceptual phenomenology and their deep link through the "crisis of modern science" the deep last book of Husserl.....

i am interested by the way human brain perceived QUALITIES and OBJECTIVE INFORMATION from sound source in natural environment..

I am interested by the PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE INVARIANT which explain the information of sound sources to the geaturing and acting human body and why our generative ability to become sound source ourself and produce sound  conditioned nature affordances and conditioned us in a particular direction of time to extract what is useful to our survival in a non linear way because our cochlea is non linear... By the way what is a spiral as mathematical object and symbolic object as Cassirer called them "symbolic forms" ...

it is why the thesis that audible informative qualities which must be reducible to ONLY Fourier electrical map seems preposterous to me . We need an ecological set of experiments protocols to understand hearing...

you are not able to understand a two page psycho-acoustic article it seems NOBODY answer me ANYTHING about it Amir dance around it with his measures schemas without adressing it : Magnasco and Oppenheim

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301

Maybe if everyone activate the manners that I’m assuming all have been taught are an asset when dealing with others this would go better.  
 

Otherwise there may be nothing more of value to see here.  
 

You are right mapman for sure...

i begin this discussion by thanking Amir for his free useful measures information..

Then i observed that the subjectivist-objectivist division was created by FOCUS on the gear pieces by electrical measures and focus on the gear piece by listening experience...One put against the other...

This DIVISION results from the gear market sellers and consumers conditioning not from psycho-acoustic science... The tool obsessed measuring minds used this division between sellers and consumers to claim their dogma as UNIQUE TRUTH... They sell their site ideology... They debunk... Some designers which use psycho-acoustic facts trust listening and hearings but do not say it loud because there are zealots crowds attacking them like they attack audiophiles listenings reviews as of no value at all... This is my perspective about this problem...

I suggested that in psycho-acoustic science this OPPOSITION and war is meaningless completely...

I explained why using many articles but especially one by Magnasco and Oppenheim...

No one even commented it nor any subjectivist nor any objectivist...

it seems people prefer to attack ad hominem instead of thinking..

I dont need to read diploma series from someone to understand with who i spoke...😊

I use arguments...

I like to discuss in good faith...

Anybody can read my posts and articles to explain a simple fact : Qualities are informative and grounded in experience in the natural world ...Electrical measures are essential for gear design and useful to pair the gear components or help to tune a room...but electrical measures do not replace acoustic training nor musical training and dont make psycho-acoustic problems delusions from someone who dont trust ONLY  measures and  then allegedly need blind test to have the right to speak  ..

The ears/brain dont work like a Fourier computer...Period...

Sound sources are real and sound waves convey real qualitative information extracted from the sound sources by the non linear ears/brain in his time dependant domain...

Then objectivist and subjectivist division created by techno and gear market  obsession is preposterous and dont exist in psycho-acoustic science.. On the opposite the relation between the real qualities perceived by the Easrs/brain and the link to Fourier Maps and acoustic and physical invariant is at the center of this field...

Maybe if everyone activate the manners that I’m assuming all have been taught are an asset when dealing with others this would go better.

Otherwise there may be nothing more of value to see here.

@nevada_matt you are spot on.

Where amir starts going on about how, explicitly or through snide comments,  someone is  a rube, a plebe, an unsophisticated troglodyte if they don’t agree with his value judgements and they actually like, and forfend(!), purchase something that does not “measure up” per amir, is where he becomes offensive.

Tossing the "fallacious" label at @painter24 is a prime example of true colors being revealed.  

It has been implied in this thread that bad behavior in disagreement with Amir is equivalent to the bad behavior accusations leveled against Amir.  No, there is an important difference.  Amir and ASR only give lip service to the idea individuals are free to make their own choices.  The ASR approach is to badger other into submission.  Every non-compliant thought is dismissed as invalid, uninformed, biased, untrained, non-scientific, ignorant, unethical, etc., etc.  This thread is nothing more than Amir arguing and badgering with excessively long posts,