 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 341 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613480 Today 6 Topics 127503 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why does it seem that the best music constructs most microscopically in time (even if so microscopic that it appears analogue like crunch)? A reason, maybe obvioius, I thought of is that you can build up and mould many small entities in many many new creative ways. On the other hand, consider 4 even time units with 2 sound wavs (boom, pa) which are big units... as the entire pallette you have to work with. What deviations can you make with this limitation? How can you use these restraints to mould something new and creative... you can't hardly at all. ex. atoms are a really small unit and they can be built up to make a sofa or deconstructed and rebuilt to make a mouse... on the other hand if you only have entire whole mouses to work with, the only way you can make something creative up out of them is if there are thousands of mice, then the entire group can be seen as one huge thing that is made up of small mice units. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ya its sort of like the..... possible resolution of detail that details you like the resolution of an image determines how detailed (and complex) it can be |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*..... of detail that LIMITS you! d'oh! i cant write today:( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no...each mouse is independant from the rest. They are individuals. They would no longer be if they were to meld physically and form in union one physical being. Only at that point would they be considered a whole object. Im sure you could take the atoms from a mouse and turn it into water. I mean its like lego i guess no? with 10 blocks you could build a car...a wall... a house...right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then why not simply record many many interesting sounds and play them in sequence right after the other, you'd be using large chunks as units, (but really they're all made out of very small wav units.) This would be interesting and ever-changing, but maybe too analogue, it would lack tempo too. Why is tempo even interesting, I guess the brain recognizes exact time measurements. I guess time measurements are the main units in music actually. I guess you can't control big units very well, say you want to have some part of a big wav pan in the right headphone only, if it's not controllable data on a smaller level you can't do it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dude...you can do that. it would be a new sub genre. you can make music with no tempo...and without time. lets say (and this is all in real time) 10 seconds of birds calling then 2 seconds of generator noise, 5 seconds of people talking. you can do it. if this isn't the case...repeat what you said. im very interested in your concept |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in visual terms its all about perspective, coz you could still successfully create an image of a couch, provided you had enough mice to play with, and enough distance to view the "couch" at, however, sonically it doesn't quite seem to work that way .. ?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what do you mean by 'big time units'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's another interesting thing to think about... I mean what is a "whole"? The individual mouse is dissectable into units too. Math is all based on measurement of space (or time- I can't think of anything else math could possibly measure) So let's define "1" as a foot. This is divisible into inches and so on. I guess we just don't know the smallest units so that's why it's perplexing... I guess you can assign a unit of "1" to any scale you want... even a group of mice. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
every unit is discectible into smaller units there is no absolute unit of anything .....which brings up some VERY interesting questions |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
space goes into oblivion! you could go smaller smaller smaller forever! it never ends! a foot is a foot cause we're seeing the whole thing...the entire object at its biggest measurment. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the problem of 0 .. you can never get to 0 if you start with something (provided all you can do is chop it up and glue it together) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes there is aminal. a measurement of something is totaled by its biggest size. i have size 10 feet cause thats how BIG they are. im 6'4" cause thats how TALL i am. we see things in their largest format...and measure from there. we could travel backwards and get small all we wanted...doesn't do us any good. we have to see things at their biggest end so we can comprehend. the only thing we can't is the universe...its the exact opposite of small. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, well said, perspective... I read some of "the fractal geometry of nature" by mandelbrot (had to skip a lot I frankly didn't understand) (he coined "fractal") he said though, in some way better than I'll say it: you can zoom inward and inward but only for so many zooms... like a cloud is a fractal, zoom in to a smaller piece and it looks just like a big cloud did, zoom again etc... but eventually you'll see just some myst, zoom still and eventually molecules... eventually empty space or something? (I read some guy make fun of how many different things people have tried to reduce the universe into... I like motion the best right now) so basically it's ludicrous to think fractals recurse FOREVER (maybe) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
0 is like Absolue 0 -- the temperature...you can never get to it. in all things there is heat loss. thus there is never anything exactly cold and without heat. dry ice is pretty cold but it cant get any colder cause its warm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ridiculous .. i'm sure when they discovered the atom they never dreamt about quarks .. etc. etc. think the whole "building block" analogy has some problems .. maybe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wMw...you gotta read Wolfram:A new Kind of Science... I know you;d adire it after hwat you've said above... (big book tho....1200pages and heavy as fuck...but it will change the way you look at the world and answer those points you raise...)... And yeah, we're trapped in time so the only patterns we recognise are sequential...I reckon that's the appeal of LSD etc, takes you out of the prison of time & the hunt for narrative/meaning.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but thats not an absolute unit.. ...since we can still subdivide it theres no unit that we cant get smaller than, or larger than (and it really doesn't look like we're going to 'find' one, lol) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"every unit is discectible into smaller units there is no absolute unit of anything"... Spot on, Ami!!!...and very well put... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ridiculous <- mmmhh.. dunno where that came from, maybe from the ludicrous. 0 is an abstract concept .. so is anything though isn't it? but he does have a point, even if there is infinite regress it changes in terms of its visual appearance .. interesting point. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm... that's interesting, start the entire concept of measuring something based on it's whole self as a unit of measurement... but you can't just start with a complex music track, say, as a whole, you have to MAKE it (out of smaller parts) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
w M w: but what if there was another molecule smaller than an atom...actually there are...nuetrons and all that ... but i mean smaller...perhaps light itself is the smallest thing. so fast and so numerous it bends space to travel like it does. it worm holes it self through space. going smaller still you might find pathway on which it travels or something...im making stuff up now but what if there were? what you said, you just talked about empty space..which there is already. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yo jand .. i've never dropped acid - but it seems to me that we are trapped in the prison of language - "the house of being" as heidegger put it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
0 isn't that abstract...i mean im looking at my monitor...there isn't anything between my face and it. i see nothing. its considered 0. although there IS something (air) i can't see it. 0 is nothing..empty space. john cages silent peice is a good example and so is the painter that inspired john cage for 4'33' with is all white paintings -- seven of them i think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah language can really reveal some mind bending grasps of information but it can be constraining on how you interpret the world, with euphemisms and such. Weird memes and stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
0 is like the perfect circle, or an equilateral triangle, there isn't a perfect circle in the world, its just an idea. you just said that there is nothing between your eyes and the monitor, yet you admit that there is air between it .. ie. you have to ignore that there is air between it, ie. abstract for it to be 0 ??? dunno just toying with ideas .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What if you define one whole apple as "1"... can't you logically say you ate exactly "0" apples? (if you ate none?) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you know i just thought of something... i was looking at the moon and thinking of my face / monitor idea. it takes time to get to the moon obviously. time itself must be the smallest thing there is. it consumes us. between objects there is time...its both infinitly fast..and infinitly slow. its faster than light. we move ourselves though blank space thats filled with time thus things seem to move....or do move. without time nothing could exist ... not even light. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol, my comment sounds so obviously retarded |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
language constructs the world - we conceive it through language .. ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Time is motion though isn't it? A dictionary defined time as "actions in space' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
w M w: Of course..im not eating anything right now so that counts as 0 products consumed. 0. nothing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what's the speed of time? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't do drugs, kids...:)... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Probably language is reduceable to mental images? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehehe .. kay uncle jand .. but seems to me everything we say is confounded by the fact that we say it/ that it is necessarily said, it is necessarily bound in language .. and it's perfectly arbitrary |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
action could not take place without time unless a new set of physics and law were put in place. action is the set motion within time so we can trace movemets. wave your hand slowly and move it from the left to right side of your face...follow it with your eyes...its taking time for it to move across. without time it couldn't move cause it couldn't be calculated. all sight would be obliterated...light to your eye would stop thus you stop seeing colors. you would die. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(yeah, I'm gonna check that book someday jand) "what's the speed of time?" ha, that's a wicked question! That's way better than "if a tree fell in the woods yada yada" in creating a sort of zen state (the kind that made bart simpsons eyes drift slightly apart and allowed him to excel at miniature golf) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Korben: the speed of time is infinite! time needs no time to move cause its everywhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
laws of physics are merely hypothesis though aint they? but i agree with you amonB . ... bout the whole moving hand thing, but again, its all based on a presupposition, "movement" the word already presupposes such an element .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but maybe time is just some phenomenon we percieve that only exists because of action... ex. what if you completely stopped action on planet zq1 (froze it, but didn't harm/upset anything as freezing kills most life etc)... action would stop but and basically "time" would stop because action did... but you didn't freeze the whole universe, just planet zq1... so when you unfreeze it, it will be as if time stopped then started again (with the exception of the planets relation to the rest of the universe which kept on moving) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah i know .. but its quite a cool way of thinking about it. I mean, if you conceive of time as an infinite axis, then one could envision us just moving along this axis (necessarily), but how come sometimes, time seems to pass slowly and sometimes fast? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah the word is there to describe movement through a space what do you mean by 'presupposition'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I probably don't understand it, but didn't einstein say movement of an object only makes sense as relative to another object? Well suppose we pinpoint the center of the universe and use that point as the relative point to measure all movement by? Wouldn't movement's measurement make much more sense? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think we percieve time as fast or slow because the sensory input varies... when we play a videogame it flies and when we go to school and stare at a wall it goes slow. You need "something" to happen to your senses to chronologize that anything happened to make an impact on your memory of events maybe? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean for the word movement to have meaning, it necessarily presupposes the whole time/space thing .. and wmw: would only make sense relative to that point (if there is such a point) :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well thats true. say someone ran faster than me....both of us would be compared. him being faster than i am. if we all ran the same speed whos to say who is faster? our present state is all reletive. our whole thinking is comparing. we compare prices, we compare everything. and there is no single point in the universe. what would you compare it to? nothing. there isn't a single spot. and why would you want to measure movement from that location? that would make as much sense as bouncing two rubber balls on either side of the road. does one ball bounce faster from its location? probably not. cool concept you have there though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the time/space thing in a sense is also arbitrary .. hence its all a bit wishy washy .. (thought what i've just said also relies on pre-suppositions) .. ad infinitum .. and thus i hope to have undermined myself - i might cruise now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
m W m:!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I LOVE THIS TOPIC!! You know how long ive been thinking about the concept of fast / slow time. having fun time goes faster than starting at a wall. for both people doing such things...time isn't actually going faster or slower..it has stayed at the pace it always has. its just that either's minds consumed by objects differently. sweet you brought that up! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah but that point has special reason to be that point (center of the big bang theoretically) matter moves away from it... it's hard to measure the moon orbiting the earth if they're both firing away from the center around galaxies and other complex stuff I don't understand. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
