Philosophy Now Forum

_______

I find this to be quite fascinating...

The following is a gif of the diamond (or sapphire) tip of an audio stylus traveling through the grooves of a vinyl record as seen by an electron microscope...



Now, setting aside the fact that there is a pretty good "scientific explanation" for how it all works, let's assume for the sake of the point I'm about to make that the record groove at the point of contact with the stylus is some climactic moment in a piece of music performed by a symphony orchestra.

In which case, I find it almost impossible to understand how that tiny pointed spike of either diamond or sapphire - scribbling through that tiny groove of poly-vinyl plastic - could not only reproduce the not-so-subtle (yet hearable) tone variances between, say, a piano, violins, cellos, double basses, flutes, oboes, French horns, timpani, cymbals, and perhaps even a choir, etc., etc...

...but reproduce them as they are all occurring "simultaneously" to one another.

It almost seems as if the universe...

(or some vast intelligence behind the universe)

...is saying:

"...look, just do this, this, and this with these material substances (plastic, diamond, metal, along with some electronic razzmatazz) to make the illusion look convincing, and I (the universe/God) will do what's necessary to make the illusion work for you idiots..."

Again, it doesn't matter what human science has to say about it, just look at the gif and try to wrap your mind around how so many distinctly unique (again, "simultaneously" playing) instrumental tones could emerge from what you are seeing.

Anyway, I just thought that was something interesting to think about.
_______

_______

̶N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶

Grocery list
_______

Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:47 am Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

The only way humans "understand" physics is by inventing mechanisms which appear to answer our questions. Mathematical/computational mechanisms.

What sort of non-mechanical "understanding" of physics do you have in mind?

The watchmaker theory isn't about lack of understanding. It's about "the only way this fucking place makes any sense is through invention"

The invention of theories, knowledge, machines, tools. And of course, how else could it make sense? What could we possibly relate our so-called understanding to?

The only path to understanding IS self-reference. Which is why we have recursion/computation as a scientific tool.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:58 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:47 am Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

The only way humans "understand" physics is by inventing mechanisms which appear to answer our questions. Mathematical/computational mechanisms.

What sort of non-mechanical "understanding" of physics do you have in mind?

The watchmaker theory isn't about lack of understanding. It's about "the only way this fucking place makes any sense is through invention"

The invention of theories, knowledge, machines, tools. And of course, how else could it make sense? What could we possibly relate our so-called understanding to?

The only path to understanding IS self-reference. Which is why we have recursion/computation as a scientific tool.

What you mean is: "the only way this (meaningless expletive implying... what?) place makes any sense to me, an amateur in the referenced fields, is through invention or the metaphysical".

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:45 pm What you mean is: "the only way this (meaningless expletive implying... what?) place makes any sense to me, an amateur in the referenced fields, is through invention OR the metaphysical".

It's definitely not an OR. It's an "of", or an "a.k.a"

the only way....is through invention of the metaphysical.
the only way....is through invention. a.k.a the metaphysical.

Logic/Mathematics/Computer science (all the formal scientces) IS proffessional metaphysics. It's the foundation of science.

It's the self-design of the laws of thought in order to understand the world through the lens of the metaphysical theories that we invent.

Without Logic even the most basic distinction you use to understand the world collapses. The difference between True and False disappears.

So if you want to understand the Creator/Designer (of laws) mindset, you know where to go.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:47 am Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

Sure, we can understand our superficial explanations for what we see in that gif, but the deeper point of my little OP is that perhaps there is an even deeper (more accurate) explanation.

In other words, and to borrow from the theories of psychologist and popular science author, Donald Hoffman, what we see in this gif...



...along with our "scientific" explanation of how what we are seeing works, is simply us humans interacting with something similar to an "icon" on a computer screen, which implies the existence of something going on "behind the scenes," so to speak, of which the icon is merely a superficial representation of.

Now I'm not sure if I'm doing a very good job of explaining what I mean, however, your snide comment shows me that you have trouble picking up on (trouble understanding) implied concepts.
_______

_______

̶N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶

Brylcreem: "...a little dab'll do ya..."


_______

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:55 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:47 am Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

Sure, we can understand our superficial explanations for what we see in that gif, but the deeper point of my little OP is that perhaps there is an even deeper (more accurate) explanation.

In other words, and to borrow from the theories of psychologist and popular science author, Donald Hoffman, what we see in this gif...



...along with our "scientific" explanation of how what we are seeing works, is simply us humans interacting with something similar to an "icon" on a computer screen, which implies the existence of something going on "behind the scenes," so to speak, of which the icon is merely a superficial representation of.

Now I'm not sure if I'm doing a very good job of explaining what I mean, however, your snide comment shows me that you have trouble picking up on (trouble understanding) implied concepts.
_______

My point is you (and I) as "superficial" observers can do exactly what you're proposing. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are professionals who are experts in this field whose understanding is distinctly NOT superficial, it eclipses your's and mine. But the beauty of the situation is that we don't need to be experts, personally, because the experts generally share their information (if one is intellectually curious enough to seek it out).

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:55 am I find this to be quite fascinating...

Even though the image is highly magnified, it doesn't show the incredibly nuanced shapes engraved in the tracks. I don't have any categorical objection to intuiting that something is going on behind the scenes that goes beyond what science knows of or even potentially can know of. I have a number of beliefs that probably fall into that category. I just don't think this is an example of that. I think we see the magnification and on some level the complexity of the groove doesn't seem to match the complexity of the music, but if were went in there with something more along the lines of an electron microscope (or if that was one, at a magnitude several orders up), we'd find a matching complexity.

There's a kind of counterpart to....

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:47 am
Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

which is that everything we come to understand will have an explanation that won't affect our current paradigm, coupled with and anyone who thinks they've sussed out a 'something going on' that doesn't fit my paradigm is making stuff up.

That's what I mean by my having no categorical objection.

I also think, perhaps similarly to Skepdick (I often have a hard time being sure), that metaphysics and making stuff up and placeholders are a part of pretty much all models, including science's models.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:44 pm My point is you (and I) as "superficial" observers can do exactly what you're proposing. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are professionals who are experts in this field whose understanding is distinctly NOT superficial, it eclipses your's and mine. But the beauty of the situation is that we don't need to be experts, personally, because the experts generally share their information (if one is intellectually curious enough to seek it out).

You still don't get it.

What is it that you don't understand about my suggestion that what we - (including the experts) - see in this gif...



...is simply us humans (which, again, includes the experts) interacting with something similar to Hoffman's "icons" on a computer screen, which, in turn, implies the existence of something going on "behind the scenes," of which the icons (what we call the phenomenal features of reality) are merely superficial representations of?

In other words, the so-called "professional experts" are experts at analyzing the superficial "icons," but haven't a clue as to the true ("behind the scenes") nature of what the iconography is founded upon or why it works the way it does - hence the infamous expression of befuddlement...

"...shut up and calculate...".
_______

_______

̶N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶

Vacu-um



_______

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:51 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:55 am I find this to be quite fascinating...

Even though the image is highly magnified, it doesn't show the incredibly nuanced shapes engraved in the tracks. I don't have any categorical objection to intuiting that something is going on behind the scenes that goes beyond what science knows of or even potentially can know of. I have a number of beliefs that probably fall into that category. I just don't think this is an example of that. I think we see the magnification and on some level the complexity of the groove doesn't seem to match the complexity of the music, but if were went in there with something more along the lines of an electron microscope (or if that was one, at a magnitude several orders up), we'd find a matching complexity.

An electron microscope is indeed what was used to create the image in the gif.

And yes, it probably could have zoomed-in further to explicate even greater detail, but that still wouldn't make it any less fascinating when it comes to what we are hearing...

(perhaps dozens of uniquely toned [and separately distinguishable] instruments all playing simultaneously)

...as we watch that tiny spike of diamond, skittle through those jagged grooves.
_______

_______

̶N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶

Dung beetle



Whether it be a hill, a thorn, or whatever, it seems as though "Sisyphus the dung beetle" cannot catch a break.
_______

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:51 pm There's a kind of counterpart to....

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:47 am
Ah yes, the watchmaker theory. If I can't understand it, it can't be understood.

which is that everything we come to understand will have an explanation that won't affect our current paradigm, coupled with and anyone who thinks they've sussed out a 'something going on' that doesn't fit my paradigm is making stuff up.

That's what I mean by my having no categorical objection.

I also think, perhaps similarly to Skepdick (I often have a hard time being sure), that metaphysics and making stuff up and placeholders are a part of pretty much all models, including science's models.

Well it matters if the paradigm being referred to is that of the casual observer or a expert in the field.