When this cowboy has to write a score, there are always the constraints of
what client/audience expect; even if they expect breaking a set of
conventions.

But the actual writing, the 1p experience of it, is out of my control. If I
am afforded conditions to be allowed to be open for surprise, this control
loss is ecstatic and overwhelming, in the sense that I can't keep up with
the seemingly "foreign?!" streams of notes and melodies filling my head.
Kind of like, when you start dreaming and you're sort of conscious that
you're dreaming pre-sleep, then complex imagery/thought starts to unfold
"automatically" without our control, at a rate much higher and denser than
we would ever be able to code in real time, with interfaces available to us
today. Mahler said to Bauer Lechner upon conducting his symphonies later in
life: "I don't feel like I wrote the damned things. I feel like I'm
conducting somebody else's score." And although I can't write anything
close to a Mahler symphony, I feel the same towards "my" own scores.

The craft part, tools of formal music theory and so on, are only useful
after this "generation" phase; serving merely to organize, make
presentable, to perfume, polish and make palatable the highly dense strings
of musical info passing through us all the time (if I remain quiet and
thoughtless enough, and my local universe doesn't interrupt, including my
analytical thinking, I'll begin to hear it). Contrary to Tom Waits, who is
a much better song writer than yours truly, I do not believe that "the muse
just happens to strike you when you get lucky". For this cowboy, it's more
a problem, to create the conditions that make surprise possible: for me
when my analytical faculties are weakened sufficiently.

Yes, I would subscribe to "every symphony/song exists" outside of time or
is pre-established. But they are infinite. And they fork infinitely into
new songs. I want my musical redundancy pure and free and the problem is
all the functional, analytical noise, and biological need's stuff in the
way ;)

After I've gone fishing, then the formal theory and craft becomes central;
and you discover: Funny, "I" did that, would've never crossed "my" mind...

I've never solved a NP-Complete problem though :)

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>  Hi Roger,
>
>     I will interleave some remarks.
>
> On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
> a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
> composer/conductor.
>
>
>     Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go too
> far. This "musical score", does it require work of some kind to be created
> itself?
>
>
> This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
> all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
> Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
> could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.
>
>
>     I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving 
> anNP-Complete computational 
> problem<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems>that has an 
> infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not
> possible to maximize or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate
> system<http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ300/econ300pdf/lecture%20300-08.pdf>.
> Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical
> facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis
> rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal
> computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! How can
> the existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an infinite
> problem to be solved first?
>     Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,
>
>
> That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources, as put
> in this way, people might think you mean "primitively physical resource".
>
>
>
> and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim access to
> the information that would be in the solution that the computation would
> generate. WE might try to get around this problem the way that Bruno does
> by stipulating that the "truth" of the solution gives it existence, but the
> fact that some mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the
> prior sense) does not allow it to be considered as accessible for use for
> other things. For example, we could make valid claims about the content of
> a meteor that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty about
> those claims unless we actually crack open the rock and physically examine
> its contents.
>     The state of the universe as "moving harmoniously together" was not
> exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of the
> simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the percepts that
> make up the monads such that, for example, my monadic percept of living in
> a world that you also live in is synchronized with your monadic view of
> living in a world that I also live in such that we can be said to have this
> email chat. Remember, Monads (as defined in the Monadology) have no windows
> and cannot be considered to either "exchange" substances nor are embedded
> in a common medium that can exchange excitations. The entire "common world
> of appearances" emerges from and could be said to supervene upon the
> synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.
>
>     I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the
> NP-Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe simulataneous
> with the computations so that the universe itself is the computer that is
> finding the solution.   <snip>
>
>
>
> Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to