Is there a soul inside musical instruments?

For discussion of all general music topics, Favored Nations artists, Vai-related musicians and all other artists and bands.
User avatar
Breeder
Member
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:12 am

yes, I had chemistry and in my book it says something like this:

from wiki:

The atom is a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. The atomic nucleus contains a mix of positively charged protons and electrically neutral neutrons (except in the case of hydrogen-1, which is the only stable nuclide with no neutron)


I do not accept things as they are written, I want some proof, some explanation...empiricism has it`s flood and for all we know our whole image of universe may be wrong but it helps me accept things since we got the whole knowledge by that system anyway.




so...what be have here is LOADS of empty space and some subatomic particles...so first, what are subatomic particles made of? And secondly, think in four dimensions...

This is boundary where knowledge and philosophy meet each other (empiricism, empiricism and empiricism)

I said enough cause I know you will understand me and I am too tired to go into an argument.

I called you an asshole cause you are laughing at everybody without trying to explain anything...that my friend is one part of the definition of ELITIST...you know some things better then most of us so share it (Look at BBB for example...I may not agree on everything he says, but he will always give his best to explain things in which he has an expertise, making it for us laymen easier to understand).

I have nothing against you but you should try being more collegial...

Good night
Patill
Member
Member
Posts: 1096
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:54 am

is it so hard to understand that an electron and another electron are the same? Even there are differences in spins, but still, it´s only 2 different types of electrons. One spins +1/2 the other one -1/2. There are no more options. Same with protons. One equals the other, no big deal. It´s just a small ammmount of energy. And Energy is energy, no matter what. You can´t erase energy. You just can convert it into movement, heat or electrical energy. Einstein even found out that you can get lots of energy out of mass, which is bound energy (protos and electrons) if you set it free, you have the idea of a nuclear bomb.

E=m*c^2

Energy is mass multiplied with twice the lightspeed. Just type that into your calculator.


Breeder wrote: so...what be have here is LOADS of empty space and some subatomic particles...so first, what are subatomic particles made of?
No we don´t have loads of empty space, or can you see through your hand? Its only relative. The spaces are very small, but the atoms are even much smaller. That means "loads" of space. If you put an apple here adn another one some miles elswehere, you have the relation of that space. But if you shrink the apple, you shrink the space equally. Since the apple is very small then, the space is, too.

Subatomic particles, if I get this right in english are quarks for example. But even they are divided into smaller parts. And these smaller parts will be devided soon. But as it comes to an electron and a proton, which atoms consist of, they are all the same. Just the same, no difference in any kind of small possibility.

Atoms are only different ammounts of protons and electrons. So they are also the same each and every one. Then it comes to combining atoms, which gives us molecules. They are also the same, as long as they coonsist of the same molecules and have the same structure.

They are the smallest particles everyone and everything consists of. Your computer, your T-Shirt, you, everything.


Concerning this topic: The only reason why guitars sound different or have mojo or something is because of the random order of molecules. They absorb the oscillation of the strings differently and the wood oscillates after that. If the wood oscillates good with your body (which also oscillates), you may feel good vibration and say the guitar has mojo. If the woods don´t fit together in their oscillatin and don´t fit to your body, get another guitar.

But a guitar having a soul is out of discussion. If you ask that to somebody not playing the guitar he will think you´re a maniac. I understand this question, because I am also very obsessed with these instruments and god we all wish our guitars where alive in some way^^, but we shouldn´t loose reality on this one...
User avatar
guyver_dio
Member
Member
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:18 am

Patill wrote:"Spiritual people" live in their spiritual world and don´t listen to scientific and proven research. It may be too much for some people to learn or whatever.
you have to admire spiritual beliefs somewhat though, my mind in particular just will not accept it as truth but I get extremely jealous of how fun life must be for these people. I'm talking about true believers. They are given answers for most of life's great fears that we as advocates of science have not and may never be able to answer. If they can accept all these wacky assumptions as the truth and live happier and die without fear because of it it's wonderful. The way I see it though is if nature was a being, and was telling us that all these wacky assumptions are true with a smirk on his face, I'd listen in but then I wouldn't be able to stop myself from leaning into him and say 'pssst, ok how does everything REALLY work' lol, I can't help but want to know, no matter how cold and lonely the truth may be. My only worries about these spiritual nuts is if they get into positions where they can spend billions of the governments money to go investigate something like say......'if collapsing stars really create souls' lol, but then again they wouldn't because they already see it as fact.
User avatar
Big Bad Bill
Member
Member
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:40 am

guyver_dio wrote:you have to admire spiritual beliefs somewhat though, my mind in particular just will not accept it as truth but I get extremely jealous of how fun life must be for these people. I'm talking about true believers.
I've had the same thought myself. It must be blissfully comforting to genuinely believe in such things. But that's the point, I'm not sure many people unequivocally believe in whatever there thing is. I think it was Cardinal Basil Hume who had the misfortune to have to announce he was dying of cancer (if memory serves). His friends and colleagues were all very sad and prayed for him, except a good Anglican friend of his who congratulated him enviously and said how lucky he was to be meeting 'God Himself' sooner than he would! I wonder why his other friends didn't behave similarly? The Anglican friend was a true believer.
guyver_dio wrote:They are given answers for most of life's great fears that we as advocates of science have not and may never be able to answer. If they can accept all these wacky assumptions as the truth and live happier and die without fear because of it it's wonderful.
I think there is a side of humans though, that like in the film 'The Matrix', that compels us to 'take the blue pill' and learn the 'truth' however horrifying. Ignorance is bliss, but I think there's something in us all that make us want to check if we're right or simply ignorant, even if we won't admit to that urge!
guyver_dio wrote:My only worries about these spiritual nuts is if they get into positions where they can spend billions of the governments money to go investigate something like say......'if collapsing stars really create souls' lol, but then again they wouldn't because they already see it as fact.
Or indeed use these methods to make decisions. Didn't one famous Superpower leader of the 80s consult an astrologer? Didn't a couple of world leaders recently whisper magic spells, on bended knee, to decide whether or not to start a military campaign that is still ongoing?
User avatar
Breeder
Member
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:12 am

patill, I understand your point of view...I read about physics all the time all though I study law so I am not completely clueless

google string theory

and think like this...you have space, you have coordinates, you have movement...if everything would be the same you would have one infinite dot in space without time...everything has a function and everything is being distinguished by it`s own function (or rather by the affect that is perceived by the observer)

You can clone me but it will still be my clone, not me

as I said...it is philosophy AND science...plus...you never saw the complete model of any particle, have you?

What you are talking about is just part of the simplified model of universe which we made up so we can observe it more fully thanks to the fact that we feel that so tiny differences don`t make difference at all

I am just saying that there are differences, not that they make any significant changes and I am not trying to argue, I am simply trying to add something to your statement: We do not know, we guess and hope that chances are the same throughout the 4th dimension (let me paraphrase Hawking: My biggest fear is that if this universe and all the rules suddenly started to exist who says I will not cease the next moment? )
User avatar
Big Bad Bill
Member
Member
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:40 am

Breeder wrote:What you are talking about is just part of the simplified model of universe which we made up so we can observe it more fully thanks to the fact that we feel that so tiny differences don`t make difference at all
Science uses simplified, idealistic models to try and glean some basic form of understanding. But then science extrapolates those data to try and explain real world (complex) situations. Therein lies the problem, though. When systems become complex, they often don't behave in a linearly extrapolated form and so the ideas are modified, added to or discarded and new ones hypothesised. This is my problem with Psychology: they use methods devised for simple systems (scientific method) and apply them to very, very complex ones (humans and animals) and wonder why their data is sometimes anomalous and often meaningless. They never attempt to make predictions because of this unreliability in their models.
Breeder wrote: We do not know, we guess and hope that chances are the same throughout the 4th dimension
'Guess' is the wrong and misleading word, Breeder, its more like 'make ideas based upon evidence' in other words it has some basis in empirical reality. Theoretical physicists come up with all sorts of interesting ideas, but they're never taken remotely seriously until their predictions are observed and tested. Have any of the predictions of string theory been observed and tested or is it just a convenient way of describing the world in a way our physical senses can comprehend them?
Patill
Member
Member
Posts: 1096
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:54 am

Breeder wrote: You can clone me but it will still be my clone, not me
No, it is you. If you say clone, then it is you. The only reason why it does not 100% look like you is because of the randomness of particles. Since cloning is not yet practicable the right way I don´t even know if they look 100% the same. He won´t fart the same time like you because the molecules move differently. But if you say that´s a clone, it´s not me, I can say you´re the clone and you´re not him.

Tell this to a lawyer if your clone kills somebody and leaves DNA ;).
Breeder wrote: What you are talking about is just part of the simplified model of universe which we made up so we can observe it more fully thanks to the fact that we feel that so tiny differences don`t make difference at all
well, I simplified it for you, as you wished ;). This is not simple....
Breeder wrote: as I said...it is philosophy AND science...plus...you never saw the complete model of any particle, have you?
I don´t need to. Maybe you do because you´re not into science, but I don´t. You know, there´s certain ways to make a product, let´s say a t-shirt. You can take petroleum, or you can take carbon and air. You could also take a human being, extract carbon atoms and hydrogen to make petroleum. You know, all this would not be possible without a certain construction kit that is present. And it is.

I don´t have to see single particles for that. As long as I know how they work and what to do with them I can do everything I want. It may not be reliable, but I could^^.
User avatar
Matwey
Member
Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 10:33 am

Patill wrote:
Breeder wrote: as I said...it is philosophy AND science...plus...you never saw the complete model of any particle, have you?
I don´t need to. Maybe you do because you´re not into science, but I don´t. You know, there´s certain ways to make a product, let´s say a t-shirt. You can take petroleum, or you can take carbon and air. You could also take a human being, extract carbon atoms and hydrogen to make petroleum. You know, all this would not be possible without a certain construction kit that is present. And it is.

I don´t have to see single particles for that. As long as I know how they work and what to do with them I can do everything I want. It may not be reliable, but I could^^.
Let's imagine for a moment that you have been asked to build a product which is more serious than a T-shirt - say a planet. And you have been given a 'certain construction kit' to achieve that. And you 'know how particles work and what to do with them' and you really can do whatever you want. And (surprise!) - it is actually reliable.

So you know HOW to achieve that, though next question is - WHY the fuck would you do that??? Just to give all those inhabitants of newly created planet their chance to ask themselves that same question forever.

Science can tell you HOW something works, however it knows nothing about WHY.
User avatar
Jeroen
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:34 am

Patill wrote:
Breeder wrote: You can clone me but it will still be my clone, not me
No, it is you. If you say clone, then it is you. The only reason why it does not 100% look like you is because of the randomness of particles. Since cloning is not yet practicable the right way I don´t even know if they look 100% the same. He won´t fart the same time like you because the molecules move differently. But if you say that´s a clone, it´s not me, I can say you´re the clone and you´re not him.

Tell this to a lawyer if your clone kills somebody and leaves DNA ;).
Not sure if I read you correctly, but if I do: A clone is exactly that, a clone. it won't be you. The DNA would belong to a human with an (almost) exact genetic makeup, but that's where the resemblance stops; he won't have your life experiences that are unique to you, as you won't have his life experiences that are unique to him . The best way to prove that is this: Your clone could live on while you have died.... You each would be a separate entity.

In the T-shirt example, if I make 2 shirts from the same material source, they would be physically identical, but not 'one' in the same sense you apparently think clones are.
Patill
Member
Member
Posts: 1096
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:54 am

Jeroen wrote: Not sure if I read you correctly, but if I do: A clone is exactly that, a clone. it won't be you. The DNA would belong to a human with an (almost) exact genetic makeup, but that's where the resemblance stops; he won't have your life experiences that are unique to you, as you won't have his life experiences that are unique to him . The best way to prove that is this: Your clone could live on while you have died.... You each would be a separate entity.


yes, that´s what I mean, a clone is not 100% you because of randomness. Like I said, he won´t fart the same time like you, so won´t he make the same experiences ;).

Bacteria are clones by the way. If you have a disease, the little guys inside you may be millions of years old :lol:
Jeroen wrote: In the T-shirt example, if I make 2 shirts from the same material source, they would be physically identical, but not 'one' in the same sense you apparently think clones are.
well, the example was not ment for the clone thing ;). With 2 T-Shirts being identical is a matter of relativity. If you go deep enough, you will find particles that are absolutely the same 1:1, like a clone is ment to be. But if you look at the shirt itself and count all these small particles, you won´t get the same number.
Patill
Member
Member
Posts: 1096
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:54 am

Matwey wrote: Science can tell you HOW something works, however it knows nothing about WHY.
well, you´re wrong again. Please stop making random conclusions if you don´t know. Please!
User avatar
Jeroen
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:34 am

Patill wrote: If you go deep enough, you will find particles that are absolutely the same 1:1, like a clone is ment to be.
Since we're only able to 'dissect' particles to the quark type particle level, that's an assumption I'm certainly not willing to make. Especially considering this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also the conclusion of what is 'meant' to be is extremely subjective....
User avatar
Breeder
Member
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:12 am

Jeroen wrote:
Patill wrote: If you go deep enough, you will find particles that are absolutely the same 1:1, like a clone is ment to be.
Since we're only able to 'dissect' particles to the quark type particle level, that's an assumption I'm certainly not willing to make. Especially considering this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also the conclusion of what is 'meant' to be is extremely subjective....
WORDS OF WISDOM

and if I may add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Patill wrote:I don´t need to. Maybe you do because you´re not into science, but I don´t.
lol...so arrogant...I think you didn`t understand me
Patill
Member
Member
Posts: 1096
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:54 am

Breeder wrote: lol...so arrogant...I think you didn`t understand me
yes, I´m arrogant :roll:. How else should I explain it? You know there is a difference between saying something and laughing at other people or making yourself better because you know things and other people don´t.

I´m not judging anybody, so watch your attitude very closely. I´m not letting you insult me as an asshole like you did before or as arrogant. Keep this clean, there´s a mod watching. Either you discuss or you get off. But don´t insult other people.
Jeroen wrote: Since we're only able to 'dissect' particles to the quark type particle level, that's an assumption I'm certainly not willing to make. Especially considering this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also the conclusion of what is 'meant' to be is extremely subjective....
hmm, as for the link I don´t see anything theory breaking. Like you know, when you do a chemical reaction twice, you will get the same product. Always. Just take the *SPAM* industry, they have to be sure to even make 0,1 µg of a certain product (WITHOUT any side products) that can save your life. If there was a difference between all the particles it would be noticable in some way, since a very very small ammount has an efect on you. Maybe the *SPAM* stuff was a little too big of an example, let´s go even smaller into measuring particles with HPLC or something. You always get the same peaks. There is no measuarble difference and they can go very very deep. At some small point everything is the same.

Of course, there is a very small chance that you´re right, maybe you should copy this text and if anyone finds out you can go for money on the patent :mrgreen:. Should be very worthwile^^. But this would throw everything we have into a trash can. And since we have thousands of confirmations, that confirm other things that fit into this, one thing confirms something else then etc., I wouldn´t count on it. Everything that has been found out the last couple of years is a well bound circle.


*SPAM*

p h a rmacy ??? what´s going on with the spam thing :lol:
User avatar
Jeroen
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:34 am

Patill wrote:
Jeroen wrote: Since we're only able to 'dissect' particles to the quark type particle level, that's an assumption I'm certainly not willing to make. Especially considering this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also the conclusion of what is 'meant' to be is extremely subjective....
hmm, as for the link I don´t see anything theory breaking.
It says, in short, that quarks cannot be obvserved directly, hence the statement that they are 100% identical is not proven.

Like you know, when you do a chemical reaction twice, you will get the same product. Always. Just take the *SPAM* industry, they have to be sure to even make 0,1 µg of a certain product (WITHOUT any side products) that can save your life. If there was a difference between all the particles it would be noticable in some way, since a very very small ammount has an efect on you. Maybe the *SPAM* stuff was a little too big of an example, let´s go even smaller into measuring particles with HPLC or something. You always get the same peaks. There is no measuarble difference and they can go very very deep. At some small point everything is the same.

Of course, there is a very small chance that you´re right, maybe you should copy this text and if anyone finds out you can go for money on the patent :mrgreen:. Should be very worthwile^^. But this would throw everything we have into a trash can. And since we have thousands of confirmations, that confirm other things that fit into this, one thing confirms something else then etc., I wouldn´t count on it. Everything that has been found out the last couple of years is a well bound circle.

I appreciate your attempt at analogies, but I'm sorry to say I've got a hard time following what you are trying to say.
Then again, I'm not sure how this all contributes to the topic at hand, so..

J
Post Reply