Argumentum ad youtube...

How to isolate an instant? Take a photo. — jgill

As I've explained above, that is an arbitrarily created "instant". So it provides nothing toward proving that real time consists of a succession of instants — Metaphysician Undercover

I would be surprised if there were a proof to the contrary. Isn't all of non-analytic philosophy speculation?

mis-post

However, notice that I spoke of a "designated range". Having a range of frequency which provide the criteria for any specific "pitch", adds another parameter. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I see where you're going with this. A sound engineer could say (quite correctly), "Well, we hear a range of frequencies between A430 and A450 as an 'A', so even though this range includes mostly pitches that are technically sharp or flat, for all practical purposes we can specify this range as 'A'; just about no one can hear the difference." Is that what you mean?

Does the question "Which is the real value of A?" make sense?

As naming a convention, sure. Not otherwise. In fact, that 'A' has been designated at various frequencies over the centuries. Kind of like the "standard meter." Relatedly, people with absolute pitch don't miraculously hear some out-there entity called 'A'. They're told the names of pitches as they hear them but, unlike the rest of us, they can recall and re-identify them.

I think I see where you're going with this. A sound engineer could say (quite correctly), "Well, we hear a range of frequencies between A430 and A450 as an 'A', so even though this range includes mostly pitches that are technically sharp or flat, for all practical purposes we can specify this range as 'A'; just about no one can hear the difference." Is that what you mean? — J

Yes, that's what I mean, there would be a range which would qualify for any given pitch. But remember we are talking about a machine using software to detect distinct tones, not a human ear. With human hearing, the issue is much more complicated, as you note, with your reply to Banno.

The whole issue is much more complicated than it seems, because it's extremely difficult to produce a pure tone. It's always contaminated with overtones etc.. This is the subject of the Fourier transform. But the shorter the time period, the less certainty there can be about the frequency, and this problem manifests as the uncertainty principle.

https://tomrocksmaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/unravelling-the-secrets-of-musical-tones-with-fourier_s-methods-lai-yuk-chiu.pdf

I would be surprised if there were a proof to the contrary. Isn't all of non-analytic philosophy speculation? — jgill

But your example is not a speculation, it's an arbitrary designation: 'this photo represents an instant'. If you said that a real instant in time might look like a photo, that would be speculation. But we really do not have any idea what a real instant would look like, because we haven't determined any parameters yet. Our models of time represent it as an infinitely divisible continuity.

Professor Donald Hoffman and Rupert Spira discussions above were really clear and good explanations on the topic. I was totally enthralled by the clarity and lucidity of their ideas and explications, which I agreed on every points.

The second video on their discussion put down the final nail on the coffin of the time realists shallow and misled slogans where their misunderstandings come from.

Youtube is not perfect. It gets bad names for the commercialism and mindless ads sometimes, but there are also excellent academic discussions videos like these ones. One just has to look for the rare diamonds in the muds. Saying all Youtube videos are ads are from the shallow minded folks with no genuine effort to search for the gems in the platform.

Yes. Music makes a good laboratory to examine some of our intuitions here, because (most?) acousticians accept the idea that the "movement of sound" is an illusion. — J

Music played faster or slower speed than the original version will sound not right. Nothing is different than the speed of the playing in the music implies that human mind has perceptual ability to detect the correct speed of music just by listening to them?

Compare that with the normal speed version.

Music played faster or slower speed than the original version will sound not right. Nothing is different than the speed of the playing in the music implies that human mind has perceptual ability to detect the correct speed of music just by listening to them? — Corvus

Time and frequency are directly related, the basis of the Fourier transform. Increasing or decreasing the speed actually changes the pitch, ask Alvin and the Chipmunks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_time_stretching_and_pitch_scaling
So changing the speed of a recording is a completely different thing from changing the speed at which a person plays the particular notes.

https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/dsp-book/dsp_book_Ch10.pdf

So changing the speed of a recording is a completely different thing from changing the speed at which a person plays the particular notes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. Good point. However, what you are talking about seems to be the reproduction of music theory. My point was more on the perceptual aspects of the music listeners.

A person listening to an artist playing an instrument rapidly (decreased time between particular notes), will hear something completely different from a person listening to a recording which is speeded up.

This is because increasing the speed at which you play an instrument does not change the way that the notes are created so it does not effect the frequency of the individual notes. But increasing the speed at which a recording is played does change the way that the notes are produced from the recording medium, therefore the frequency of the individual notes is altered.

A person listening to an artist playing an instrument rapidly (decreased time between particular notes), will hear something completely different from a person listening to a recording which is speeded up. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I agree. But still I was talking about how the different speed of the same music reproduced via the recordings will be noticed by the listener as incorrect and correct just by listening to them. That judgement comes from a priori concept of temporality or musical aesthetics in human minds rather than the music itself.

This is because increasing the speed at which you play an instrument does not change the way that the notes are created so it does not effect the frequency of the individual notes — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't talking about difference in perception of live music performance and reproduction of the music from the records. I was only talking about the perceptual differences and the judgement of the listener on the same music reproduced in different speeds. Please listen to the recordings of the same music played in different speeds.

saying that we cannot know anything about anything without the mind (well, duh!) and then concluding that therefore nothing exists without the mind. The epitome of tendentiously motivated thinking! — Janus

Kastrup puts it much better than I could:

Under objective idealism, subjectivity is not individual or multiple, but unitary and universal: it’s the bottom level of reality, prior to spatiotemporal extension and consequent differentiation. The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you. What differentiates us are merely the contents of this subjectivity as experienced by you, and by me. We differ only in experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self, but not in the subjective field wherein all these memories, perspectives and narratives of self unfold as patterns of excitation; that is, as experiences.

As such, under objective idealism there is nothing outside subjectivity, for the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity. Therefore, all choices are determined by this one subject, as there are no agencies or forces external to it. Yet, all choices are indeed determined by the inherent, innate dispositions of the subject. In other words, all choices are determined by what subjectivity is. — Bernardo Kastrup

@Banno

I have watched enough of Kastrup's videos to know that I think he is a purveyor of nonsense. I think it is simply unsupportable...totally implausible...to say there is nothing outside of subjectivity. All our knowledge speaks against such a conclusion.

As far as we know each subjectivity is not connected with all the others.

About what I'd expect.

Dreadful stuff, seeing as you asked for my opinion. The phrases "unitary and universal" and "bottom level of reality" and "prior to spatiotemporal extension" ought set one's teeth on edge; they are vague to the point of incoherence. The magic hand wave of "The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you" contradicts the very use of terms such as "subjective" from which it derives.

Wayfarer, you do not have my memories, nor I, yours. That's kinda what "subjective" is. It is not shared.

The science you castigate and beg to become more "subjective" functions exactly because it works to overcome subjectivity by building on what we do share.


This is what I tried to explain on our little walk.

You mean, the one in which you put your metaphorical arms around my shoulder, and clearly explained that you didn't know what I was talking about? That walk?

I wasn't talking about difference in perception of live music performance and reproduction of the music from the records. I was only talking about the perceptual differences and the judgement of the listener on the same music reproduced in different speeds. Please listen to the recordings of the same music played in different speeds. — Corvus

Of course we're going to notice the difference, it changes the pitch. It's like Alvin and The Chipmunks. They take a recording and speed it up. It's noticeably not normal.

↪Banno You mean, the one in which you put your metaphorical arms around my shoulder, and clearly explained that you didn't know what I was talking about? That walk? — Wayfarer

:smile:

For you, probably. Funny how folk who point out problems with your posts mostly haven't understood you.

It’s not something easily understood, but there are those who do.

It’s not something easily understood, but there are those who do. — Wayfarer

The reasoning is easy enough to understand, it's the premises which are not believable. Apparently, you cannot fathom the idea that people can readily understand all your arguments and yet disagree. And this from someone who you might remember mounted some of the very same arguments in the early days. Luckily, I came to see the error of my ways.

I have no problem with you believing what you believe—it is your tireless search for authority to confirm your beliefs, and your unrelenting dogmatism which shows in your refusal to even consider any counterarguments, that I find unpalatable. The claim that those who do not believe as you do must not understand is the quintessential mark of dogmatic thinking.

I'd be happy if you go back to ignoring me now.

It’s not something easily understood, but there are those who do. — Wayfarer

There are those who agree with you, it seems - but whether they understand you, that's a different issue.

There remains the enigma mooted by Kastrup, that what is known only to oneself is also known to all. Unaddressed, save for the hand wave.

The reasoning is easy enough to understand, it's the premises which are not believable. — Janus

That passage was extracted from a longer essay and quoted in response to what I consider your fallacious description of idealism. The point being that objective idealism does not make the world dependent on the individual mind.

No, not what is known, but the capacity to experience. That is what is common to all.