AW: [Fis] Group Theory, Quantum Mechanics, and Music

Jerry' letter raises really important points:
I am unaware of any specific process or logic that starts from
mechanical principles and generates chemical structures.
There is such an approach. It starts from mechanical principles and
generates chemical structures. Please see the usage of multidimensional
partitions, specifically the clusters of subsets with predictable properties
that are alqways present if the set size is above a minimum. These
constructs can well be used as representing the chemical elements. The
constructs obey the ordering principle n=2i**2, as observed in the periodic
table of elements.

Alternatively, from a pure conceptual perspective, the question could be
asked:
If the concept of music is the same as the concept of a group, what
is the generative role of an individual's CNS in creating the
emotional response to a particular song / piece / performance? Or,
what distinguishes two individual's response to the same music?
The biologic rhythm of each individual is based on a stochastic variation
(between maps from the sequenced into the commutative and from the
commutative into the sequenced way of describing the same state of the same
set). The picture in this question assumes biologic beings (humans ) as
being mechanical, with no individual variations. (The unspoken assumption
is: if the argument were right, then each and every person would be reacting
in an identical way to the same piece of music-) This is of course highly
debatable.
As another alternative way of stating this question:
While it is conceivable that a correspondence within one mind may
generate a perfect matching between a conceptualization of a group
and a conceptualization of a "music", is it possible that two
genetically distant minds would generate a different group for the
same "music"?
Yes, different people are different.
As possible sources of the distinctive interpretations
one could invoke differential hearing ranges, differential hearing
sensitivity, differential training in music, differential training in
mathematics, differential moods, and so forth.
And genetic variation, coming from the numerosity relations between the
cell's possible states and the DNA's possible states.
It goes without saying that mechanical thinking is extraordinarily
useful for solving mechanical problems. Our challenge, it seems to
me, is distinguishing mechanical from non mechanical problems.
In my contributions, I try to put forward the point that human (biologic)
realities obey the same principles as mechanics does. I try to find the
common between mechanical and non mechanical approaches to explanations
about the world.
 In earlier posts I referred to this distinction as the difference
between Shannon information and human communication.
Yes, this is a good first approximation. Deeper understanding will show that
the Shannon algorithm invariably uses SEQUENCED media, where the information
lies in the SEQUENCE of the carriers' states. Now we observe that biologic
systems use CONTEMPORARY compositions. (Among others, the smell, the
physiology of a liquid nurturing the cell, etc. are not sequenced but a
COMMUTATIVE state. So, the distinction is not between machine and man, but
between receiving the beads of a necklace on the string (one after the
other) or in a sack, with no string (all at the same time). It is
irrelevant, whether the communication partners are men, machines or animals.

Hope to have cleared up some misunderstandings between Michael and Jerry.
Karl

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Jun 10 10:45:47 2003