Kim, I tried to stay out of this line which produced a level of vulgarity I never experienced on a civilized list (not that it disturbs me, but it is a very low scientific argumentation IMO). Also I apologize if I mix your words with Jose's, those > and >> lines are perplexing sometimes. Hard to tell who quotes whom. * I started to play (classical) music in 1927 - mostly piano. I kept up with it while doing natural science (R&D) for ~ 50 years . As a still performing musician I try to respond to your challenge: Music does not represent 'reality', although it is part of it (as Stephen said: maybe an infinitesimal part). It happens within a different "plane" from mathematics (incl. emotional), it has allowences you would never condone in math, it has emotional motives what are disallowed in math-discipline. True, you need to have learned to 'know' music, but "understanding" it means: you are not a musicioan, rather a musical scientist. Different performers can play the same piece so differently that a mathematical-type mutual coverage is out. Physics or computer sci can catch the technicalities, not "the music". So I would not formulate into the 'total' from a minuscule part. Especially not if that part is not entirely 'part' of that so called total, which is only a model (topically etc. identified and limited). Art moves in qualia different from mathematically identified?able rationalized aspects of pour logical domains. Besides: music (as we know the western artform) is decaying to nonexistence after its 3-4 centuries in the European culture. Would you include the African drums, the Oriental 1/4-tone tunes, the "native American" hummings etc. in your term of "music"?
John M --- Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So apparently those who do not scale the dizzying > heights of > metamathematics have no hope of understanding > reality? > > Try again, Jose. > > Try MUSIC > > Music is a form of mathematics which I DO > understand. I wonder how > many great mathematicians on this list have an > understanding of the > structure of that little piece of Platonia? I am > trying to see the > link between this and metamathematics. Some people > have agreed > (privately) with me that there is a link. I am not a > mathematician, > true. For that reason I make no attempt to deal with > this language > but use the musician's intuitive feeling for reality > which is highly > refined in terms of my own 1st person experience. > > There will come a time very soon when all of this > comp stuff will > need to be translated into terms the LAYman can > understand easily. > Russell Standish has already made the attempt. I > appreciate gratly > his attempt. Stop wanking off that mathematics is > the ONLY script in > which reality is encoded. It could well turn out to > be music. > > Somebody (with enough musical understanding) prove > me wrong > > Kim Jones > > > > On 31/12/2005, at 12:45 PM, Jose Ramón Brox wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > That was a real bit of pure pseudomathematical > nonsense > > > > Jose Brox > >
