Rob,

I referred to your admission of Aug. 5: "a real-valued description is in principle sufficient although often not optimal...". Well, phase differences e.g. between left and right ear can be elegantly described with complex exponential functions. However, I maintain that FT implies an unnatural because arbitrarily chosen point of reference while CT refers to the actual moment. Is this discrepancy just an undecidable metaphysical one? I don't think so. I agree on that many ideal notions and functions are at best incomplete descriptions of nature. Because you seem to agree with Shannon instead of Einstein, I hope you will be my ally.

Eckard

John C,

Didn't we deviate a lot from topic? I have to apologize for my mistakable hint to N-waves. Although my measurement was performed on tiny exploding pieces of conductors in arc welding, they did resemble flying bullet's shock waves.

In the near field the recorded shape was mainly determined by the upper frequency limit of the mic. At large distance, due to stronger attenuation, the single upward and downward bell gets just wider if there are no reverberations. A remote blast sounds deep. You are quite right: The velocity of the wave front (after it became independent of the shock) does not exceed the velocity of sound.

Eckard

Eckard,

"Well, phase differences e.g. between left and right ear can be elegantly described with complex exponential functions." It can be more easily described via time and intensity differences, which is primarily what the human auditory system uses, to localize sounds.

Rob McEachern

Yes Bob,

I see the physiologically plausible processing of ITD and ILD one more indication for that the auditory pathway doesn't perform complex analysis.

Let me mock and paraphrase an utterance by Einstein: Elegance belongs to tailors and shoemakers into putative elegance belongs to arbitrarily and artificially made complex theories.

IIRC, It was in my essay on Shannon where I mentioned how Tukey's real-valued view was elegantly "improved".

Eckard

Dear Rob,

I beg your pardon. In a hurry I wrote Bob instead of Rob, and I didn't provide the [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1793] link [\link] to my essay "Shannon's View on Wheeler's Credo" where I asked "Did Alan Oppenheim improve John Tukey's cepstrum?".

Eckard

8 months later

Please excuse my sophomoric question but I am very, very curious and passionate about the subject of .

The Framework

For a moment, let us assume that the framework of context always controls output content, i.e. function precedes form. Let us assume that it is the "Contextual Dimension of Singularity" ... that sets and controls the unfolding Precursor Principles of Superposition ... within Duality ... that in turn . . . "Manifest the Time-Space-Energy Content" of quantum wave coherence and particle quantum entanglements .

The Question

With this simplistic Meta cause-effect assumption, what might researchers discover if they were to assume that the Meta Contextual Framework of Singularity is the core essence of Consciousness ... that gives birth to the Duality of time-space-conscious-energy states of inter and intra-relationships that in turn gives rise to the Superposition Principles of both quantum wave coherence and particle quantum entanglements.

If all energy is in fact conscious - which would be mirrored by the fact that all states of consciousness are energetic- then perhaps we should now be attempting to uncover the metrics of ... the very "Synergistic Attributes" of consciousness.

I Need Help

Will someone please contact me as I am now looking for a research institution to empirically test my hypothesis "On Understanding the Ontology of the Conscious Operating System of the Universe?

2 years later

I'd argue it is much more natural to present that quantum coherence is equivalent to superposition and that entanglement is equivalent to superposition over a couple (or multitude) of diverse "sets" rather than a single "set"

Write a Reply...