Over 2 seconds of binary information describing an audio wave, there are a discrete number of voltage fluctuations that can be signified, but yet essentially infinite combinations of sounds it could be reflecting in reality.

It's important to note that the universe is noisy, and noise prevents a true continuum of possible sounds. There are also many other constraints to hearing -- minimum and maximum loudness levels, frequency limits, etc. -- that contribute to bounding the number of possible differentiable and perceivable sounds. And if we take these limits and compare them quantitatively with the limits of digital audio, we find that CD quality is very close to the limit of audible information. If we increase the quantization level to 24 bits (where CD is 16-bit samples), then there are more possible digital recordings than audible ones.

"wavelings" ("sub-waves", "constituent" waves, whatever term)

I like "wavelings" as an unambiguous term for the component waves.

 

Essentially, you're saying "I can't believe it", but -- I'm sure you'd agree -- that's neither a logical nor scientific argument. And though there's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, I'd suggest that you weigh your intuitive disbelief against the two-plus centuries of scientific research on these phenomena. To put it plainly, there's no "gee whiz" aspect of linear wave mixing for scientists, and that should tell you something. I don't mention this to dismiss your skepticism, rather to help you re-calibrate it.

—> This !

The disconnect is in the dismissal of superposition.

 

As another poster recently remarked: "There's more to it than meets the eye." This is my intuition, because 1D superimposition works for me, and I'm aware it's long held theory, but post-recording parsing of it does not without a deeper investigation. The universe is full of what appear to be illusions. I believe this is one of them.

 

A sound sample is really nothing more than multi-dimensional fluctuations in pressure, as measured from a one-dimensional space. Gluing these individual samples together "elevates" the data into a two-dimensional space which can then be decomposed with functions like y = sin(x). There are actually a number of functions you could use instead, but that one's probably the most well understood and hence the one that's most often used. In any case the less samples considered, the more "instantaneous" accuracy. In other words, were you to run an FFT with a "window" as large as an entire song and then immediately reverse-FFT to reconstruct it, you'd basically get a weird cacophony of sound instead of the original song. So instead you perform an FFT on just enough samples to capture some minimum range of frequencies in order to get back a recognizable signal.

 

On a lexical note, I see now that by "discrete" you mean "parts of the whole that are independently accessible". [...] Not a big deal, but perhaps useful to consider in the strive for clarity.

Yes, you're correct — I was using "discrete" to mean that very thing. Is there another word you would suggest for this cause? I find it strange there is no actual lexical token for constituent waves. Enter "waveling" I guess?

To this point, I'd say that the universe is under no compulsion to behave in ways that seem intuitive to us. Our intuition is built from an absurdly limited scope of experience, and any argument that tries to stand on such footing is doomed to fall (see quantum mechanics for plenty of examples).

Essentially, you're saying "I can't believe it", but -- I'm sure you'd agree -- that's neither a logical nor scientific argument. And though there's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, I'd suggest that you weigh your intuitive disbelief against the two-plus centuries of scientific research on these phenomena. To put it plainly, there's no "gee whiz" aspect of linear wave mixing for scientists, and that should tell you something. I don't mention this to dismiss your skepticism, rather to help you re-calibrate it.

I wasn't 100% elucidative enough there—my apologies. What I meant was, I don't believe it's "as simple as 1D superposition," to paraphrase what earlier posters have said, and that "There's more to it than meets the eye." I'm well aware that decades have proven we can employ proven mathematical frameworks to access the information and that the math is 1D to do so. Only a fool would deny this. It's "how" the information and "where" the information is truly stored "underneath the 1D interface" that is my inquiry. My intuition says it's not quite as simple as a 1D superimposition; I explore that below.

Of course, the actual recording will represent precisely one of those sequences, but hopefully you can see that the number of possible two-second, CD-quality recordings is far, far, far greater than anything we can conceive of. And each second we add to the recording grows that crazy-land number exponentially. Hopefully this eases your skepticism that discrete representations are inadequate to capture nominally continuous phenomena.

Agreed; my contention here is that the 1D sequences of numbers are readily employable to reconstruct a facsimile of a parent wave that is storing innumerable spatially organized, "embedded tiers of data", and we can "access" that data in a quasi-"multi-track" spectrographic format after it's been "flattened" by a microphone diaphragm, much in the way a Digital Audio Workstation bounces independent tracks to a mono track, or Photoshop can flatten layers into 1. What's being described here is simply incredible (see below) from an information theory perspective, and it's the reason why posters even in this thread are quick to dismiss it as itself a "one dimensional explanation"...

A sequence of numbers is not a wave, though it can describe a wave. More to the point, every wave has a unique representation as a sequence of numbers (modulo choice of basis, obeying Nyquist criteria, etc.). We can call this sequence the wave's signature, and -- much like factorizing a composite number into its prime factors -- we can factor out these signatures from a composite wave.

That 1D component waves can be accessed from 1D composite waves is really no more magical than the fact that the number 6 "carries around with it" the numbers 3 and 2.

And this topic can very quickly cascade into other areas of thought which is where my investigations actually converge into.

Though your last paragraph is a very solid point of how "6" carries around with it "3" and "2," I would "humbly hazard" that it's just a trifle more "magical," for the following reasons:

A wave is defined as a "disturbance in a medium." But a wave can travel in outer space, where there is no discernible medium.

The declaration that a wave can carry all "wavelings" in outer space, in a perfectly organized, compartmentalized fashion within it is to also simultaneously deem it a highly advanced, autonomous 1D infinite-bit storage device unto itself, and which can be spontaneously created out of "thin air" by simply having a conversation in a room.

The numbers that signify the fluctuations are describing innumerable "wavelings" that are "organized"(!) much to the level of stacked tracks in a modern digital audio workstation. And they're describing 3D sounds. These wavelings must be "stored somewhere" in order to be addressable data elements.

I'm well aware of "aether theory," but there's problems with a "blanket" universal fabric being the be-all framework for every wave transmission, unless it, too, is some kind of infinite database. Then you have a host of colocation questions and how digital vs. analog plays out in referencing that data. With entanglement being a legal tender theory, who is to say those wavelings don't exist in the original cathedral they were recorded in somewhere, and the parent wave is merely a remote playback mechanism for them? And this doesn't even touch upon the mind's ability to even broach the topic, and what its data processing capabilities are.

In no way is it considered a default plausibility to the mind to consider information organized and stored in a superimposition state to the level that a sound wave might, consistent with "no two objects can occupy the same space" — and inconsistent with how we store data in real life, with discrete storage elements. Though here we are discussing energy that's clearly appearing to be, but doing so in an incredibly organized and utterly bizarre fashion.

There are potentially millions of disparate wavelings with their OWN wavelings in that "2 second" mentioned earlier, each of which must be peta/exa/yotta bytes worth of data, or perhaps not even numerically discernible. Numbers have no meaning unless they are mapped to "something" in space and time. So a given wave is carrying essentially a truly sublime amount of organized information about events in reality without a discernible storage medium, and supposedly doing so in 1D.

Secondarily, in that same "2 seconds" we discussed earlier, a parent wave can be described in a binary file. How are filters being applied to those limited, discrete numbers and "yielding" the embedded "wavelings" numbers that are obviously not also being numerically represented in the file?

The parent wave has its own voltages, but the wavelings have their own voltage fluctuations that are not in the file. Where are they coming from?

 

The parent wave has its own voltages, but the wavelings have their own voltage fluctuations that are not in the file. Where are they coming from?

Samples mix additively. Add the samples of two songs piecewise together and you get both being played at once. The only reason we are able to extract anything from these samples is the fact that vibrational mechanisms in nature are intrinsically mathematical and thus easily analyzed using trigonomic functions.

 

Yes, you're correct — I was using "discrete" to mean that very thing. Is there another word you would suggest for this cause? I find it strange there is no actual lexical token for constituent waves. Enter "waveling" I guess?



I wasn't 100% elucidative enough there—my apologies. What I meant was, I don't believe it's "as simple as 1D superposition," to paraphrase what earlier posters have said, and that "There's more to it than meets the eye." I'm well aware that decades have proven we can employ proven mathematical frameworks to access the information and that the math is 1D to do so. Only a fool would deny this. It's "how" the information and "where" the information is truly stored "underneath the 1D interface" that is my inquiry. My intuition says it's not quite as simple as a 1D superimposition; I explore that below.




Agreed; my contention here is that the 1D sequences of numbers are readily employable to reconstruct a facsimile of a parent wave that is storing innumerable spatially organized, "embedded tiers of data", and we can "access" that data in a quasi-"multi-track" spectrographic format after it's been "flattened" by a microphone diaphragm, much in the way a Digital Audio Workstation bounces independent tracks to a mono track, or Photoshop can flatten layers into 1. What's being described here is simply incredible (see below) from an information theory perspective, and it's the reason why posters even in this thread are quick to dismiss it as itself a "one dimensional explanation"...



And this topic can very quickly cascade into other areas of thought which is where my investigations actually converge into.

Though your last paragraph is a very solid point of how "6" carries around with it "3" and "2," I would "humbly hazard" that it's just a trifle more "magical," for the following reasons:

A wave is defined as a "disturbance in a medium." But a wave can travel in outer space, where there is no discernible medium.

The declaration that a wave can carry all "wavelings" in outer space, in a perfectly organized, compartmentalized fashion within it is to also simultaneously deem it a highly advanced, autonomous 1D infinite-bit storage device unto itself, and which can be spontaneously created out of "thin air" by simply having a conversation in a room.

The numbers that signify the fluctuations are describing innumerable "wavelings" that are "organized"(!) much to the level of stacked tracks in a modern digital audio workstation. And they're describing 3D sounds. These wavelings must be "stored somewhere" in order to be addressable data elements.

I'm well aware of "aether theory," but there's problems with a "blanket" universal fabric being the be-all framework for every wave transmission, unless it, too, is some kind of infinite database. Then you have a host of colocation questions and how digital vs. analog plays out in referencing that data. With entanglement being a legal tender theory, who is to say those wavelings don't exist in the original cathedral they were recorded in somewhere, and the parent wave is merely a remote playback mechanism for them? And this doesn't even touch upon the mind's ability to even broach the topic, and what its data processing capabilities are.

In no way is it considered a default plausibility to the mind to consider information organized and stored in a superimposition state to the level that a sound wave might, consistent with "no two objects can occupy the same space" — and inconsistent with how we store data in real life, with discrete storage elements. Though here we are discussing energy that's clearly appearing to be, but doing so in an incredibly organized and utterly bizarre fashion.

There are potentially millions of disparate wavelings with their OWN wavelings in that "2 second" mentioned earlier, each of which must be peta/exa/yotta bytes worth of data, or perhaps not even numerically discernible. Numbers have no meaning unless they are mapped to "something" in space and time. So a given wave is carrying essentially a truly sublime amount of organized information about events in reality without a discernible storage medium, and supposedly doing so in 1D.

Secondarily, in that same "2 seconds" we discussed earlier, a parent wave can be described in a binary file. How are filters being applied to those limited, discrete numbers and "yielding" the embedded "wavelings" numbers that are obviously not also being numerically represented in the file?

The parent wave has its own voltages, but the wavelings have their own voltage fluctuations that are not in the file. Where are they coming from?

All the information is in the shape of the wave and the manner it changes with time.

Three phase power,cable tv with internet and fm radio on the same wire...straight out the window.

 

All the information is in the shape of the wave and the manner it changes with time.

Three phase power,cable tv with internet and fm radio on the same wire...straight out the window.

The information remains "compartmentalized" within the wave, maintaining "child waves" within "child waves" and all staying organized — untold bytes of information stored in an energy blast with no medium to store it in, and can be pulled apart so that the derivative information remains addressable and intact. A simple "2 second curve" in the wave can contain untold sub-waves with untold bytes of info that remains discrete. Where is it stored with no medium, and how is it organized.

This is the issue...

 

Samples mix additively. Add the samples of two songs piecewise together and you get both being played at once. The only reason we are able to extract anything from these samples is the fact that vibrational mechanisms in nature are intrinsically mathematical and thus easily analyzed using trigonomic functions.

Please see reply to Fourier_Dirac above.

 

The information remains "compartmentalized" within the wave, maintaining "child waves" within "child waves" and all staying organized — untold bytes of information stored in an energy blast with no medium to store it in, and can be pulled apart so that the derivative information remains addressable and intact. A simple "2 second curve" in the wave can contain untold sub-waves with untold bytes of info that remains discrete. Where is it stored with no medium, and how is it organized.

This is the issue...

It’s all in the wave shape and how it evolves over time.

Op your favorite spreadsheet.
Fill the columns with sine waves of random amplitude frequency ad phase.
Add the up and normalize.
Plot the result.
Perform an fft.
Crack several adult beverages until its done
Delete as many terms as you like from the result.
Perform inverse fft.
Plot result.
Compare the wave to the original.

If you can’t or won’t do this we must assume :
Willfull ignorance
Troll
Unaware of what you don’t know.

 

It’s all in the wave shape and how it evolves over time.

Op your favorite spreadsheet.
Fill the columns with sine waves of random amplitude frequency ad phase.
Add the up and normalize.
Plot the result.
Perform an fft.
Crack several adult beverages until its done
Delete as many terms as you like from the result.
Perform inverse fft.
Plot result.
Compare the wave to the original.

If you can’t or won’t do this we must assume :
Willfull ignorance
Troll
Unaware of what you don’t know.

With all due respect, you obviously haven't read the full conversation and don't understand the question at hand — which has nothing to do with the fact that waves are additive phenemona that can be spectrographically analyzed and fourier transformed — and all to do with the question of how this infinite-bit information processing and storage is mysteriously organized in 1D in nature with no medium — and as another poster said "There's more to it than what meets the eye." When you truly understand the full nature of the question, and don't reply off 5% of it, please feel free to try again. Thanks.

 

Samples mix additively. Add the samples of two songs piecewise together and you get both being played at once. The only reason we are able to extract anything from these samples is the fact that vibrational mechanisms in nature are intrinsically mathematical and thus easily analyzed using trigonomic functions.

But the question is the "organized storage" of essentially infinite information, accessible within a parent wave that has no medium to store it in. The discourse is an exploration of the question of "how" this is done...

 

Just to note, when i said "there is more there than meets the eye" i meant just that, that there is more there than meets the *eye* not the signal processor. The signal processor machine/routine sees everything.
Could there be information hidden in the much higher frequencies? Maybe so, but usually we can do well with frequencies that are less than infinite.

 

Ok, but you're also implying it here with respect to the nature of the information storage/processing, no?: "Well I wonder if we can really consider it one dimensional. After all it is not just a constant voltage or current, it is voltage and current and time Time infers a derivative, so not only a single quantity but a quantity that changes one way at point A and other way at point B. Time is not euclidean, but it is often consider another dimension and in the block universe it is actually another dimension like length and width and height."

I already said that. Not sure what you want here.

 

I already said that. Not sure what you want here.

If there's extra-dimensional storage, the machinery may not be able to "see" every last quantum-scale element, no?

 

If there's extra-dimensional storage, the machinery may not be able to "see" every last quantum-scale element, no?

Yeah but see it does not necessarily have to contain information that can only be represented on the quantum scale. That's why i mentioned the higher frequencies because often we dont have to go to infinity to get a reasonable result. As the example square wave that has infinite harmonics to get a reasonable result we might only have to go up to the 21st harmonic, or maybe even the 111th harmonic, but except in theory we dont have to go that high. Even in an inductance calculation when we have to integrate from the outside of the wrie to infinity if we go out to 100 meters we probably get a very accurate result because the additive effect of the additional distance even though it might be very very large does not affect the result much at all. In fact, it tends to just produce a more and more accurate result that's all, so we might go from 1uH to 1.23456uH when we go from 100 meters to 500 meters, then when we go from 500 meters to 5000 meters we might see 1.2234561, and from 5000 meters to 50000 meters maybe 1.2345611 so we see that if we use 1.23456uH we have a very reasonable result.
The point is that more does not always add up to a more reasonable result it just wastes time.

The only way you will ever know for sure though is to try to do it or find some paper where the author tried to do it.

 

But the question is the "organized storage" of essentially infinite information, accessible within a parent wave that has no medium to store it in. The discourse is an exploration of the question of "how" this is done...

You obviously have some very unconventional ideas about the subject. That's okay. I'm a "think outside of the box" kind of guy myself. But please be humble and understand that innumerable people have been studying these things for a very long time now. You could learn a lot by simply listening and learning from others.

The long and short of it is basically this. The less entropy there is in a system, the easier it is to extract "information". The recording of a symphony playing some complex piece of music for example contains MUCH less entropy than random noise. The data is highly self-correlated and thus easily analyzable. But the data itself is not infinite, even if we COULD argue that the signal is. The data readings are just finite, approximate values.

Let me give a more concrete example of what I'm talking about. Flip ten coins in a row and record the results. Below that write down ten "simulated" coin tosses, that is, just randomly pick heads or tails in your head and then write that down. Now chances are the written values will be highly correlated (most humans make for lousy random number generators) and a simple computer program could be used to detect which sequence of coin tosses was which. The simulated sequence contains "more information" (less entropy) than the truly random sequence, and we can "extract" that fact by analyzing the data. Well the same goes for sound samples. They are correlated for the simple reason that sound itself is of an oscillatory nature which, again, relates mathematically to circles and thus a good candidate for analysis with various "circle-centric" functions (sine, cosine, etc...).

 

With all due respect, you obviously haven't read the full conversation and don't understand the question at hand — which has nothing to do with the fact that waves are additive phenemona that can be spectrographically analyzed and fourier transformed — and all to do with the question of how this infinite-bit information processing and storage is mysteriously organized in 1D in nature with no medium — and as another poster said "There's more to it than what meets the eye." When you truly understand the full nature of the question, and don't reply off 5% of it, please feel free to try again. Thanks.

The Information is stored in the shape of the wave and how it evolves over time.

With mutual respect ,that's I think (3) times where this question was answered.

Question as stated in post #1 :

Where and how is the note "stored" in the wave? Is there any current theory on how to access that information?

There is no need for words like mysteriously, no medium,essentially infinite et cetera used here without definition.

The exercise with the spreadsheet illustrates how information can be added and removed from a wave function.

Have you tried it?

The derivative of a signal brings zero new information. Rate of change is an extant property of any changing signal.

How is there no medium?

Clearly you are unaware of what you don't know and are unwilling to change that . The expression "not even wrong comes" to mind.

 

You obviously have some very unconventional ideas about the subject. That's okay. I'm a "think outside of the box" kind of guy myself. But please be humble and understand that innumerable people have been studying these things for a very long time now. You could learn a lot by simply listening and learning from others.

I’m not sure where you got the impression that I’m not humble or listening to others. I’ve been having an excellent respectful and dignified back-and-forth largely with bogosport here, and I have repeatedly said I’m thankful for the reply and complimentary of his lucid explanations that he could write a book with.

I countered the people who insist “I’m a troll” and not authentically exploring a question here amidst very intelligent people. Here I might “sound” combative or “defensive”, but truthful, objective defense always sounds that way.

I also have no tolerance for anti-troll trolls who give flippant replies to dismiss me or the topic who clearly only read a fraction of the small volume of information here, on a topic that clearly is not “set in stone,” or I wouldn’t have received default replies that rebuked me for “thinking one dimensionally” along with high quality, very plausible, animated video that is theorizing multidimensional explanations to 1D phenomena. I said up front I’m no semanticist on the physics portion, and to feel free to correct my semantics, and that this is simply one discipline I’m exploring to get at some core information for a broader study that involves topics that people might not be studying for years.

I’m grateful intelligent people such as your self care to reply.

There are elements of this question people do not think about a lot. This actually is tangential to the localized physics and math somewhat. So many could do well to hear my thoughts as well, that I have been contemplating for over 20 years, because, as you even said above, they are unconventional.

The long and short of it is basically this. The less entropy there is in a system, the easier it is to extract "information".

Thing is, I’m not really pursuing the “ease with which information can be extracted” question.

It’s obvious we can extract numeric data using well-established tools as you point out. But numeric data is what it is. Technically numbers aren’t really information until they are signifying something with meaning, otherwise there’d be no distinction between “signal” and “noise.” So we’re extracting organized, nested numeric data from the waves that is reflecting “information” — whatever that is scientifically, because it’s obviously not “more numbers,” because numbers don’t care about numbers.

So a wave is showing itself to be a mobile infinite-bit database of innumerable numeric tables where the tables are keyed to each other and remaining independently addressable, even after an additive union, and is doing so without any observable medium (there is no medium in outer space). Numbers are stored somewhere. This is part of the question.

A single wave may be an entire datacenter of information to resolutions that go way beyond our 20-20kHz hearing capacity, and these “mobile databases” fly through our heads every second remaining discrete to themselves amidst innumerable others doing the same.

Where and how these numbers are organized within this apparent (apparent!) medium-less phenomon that allow us to “extract” organized data is the primary question in my mind.

The information the wave is signifying is generated first by 4D objects minimally in reality (whatever the actual hell that is!) and the waves retain their integrity even when creating “flattened versions” of themselves, where the binary data is only reflecting the voltage fluctuations of the parent wave, and yet the child waves are not explicitly represented, but can be extrapolated after-the-fact by FFT filters, maintaining nested organization like a 3D multi-track DAW, not to mention the human mind’s unparalleled abilities to also do this and interrelate said databases like it’s “no big deal”...

The 4D objects themselves are independent of the numbers. “Where” and “what” they are is at present, a question for the “paranormal hotline,” because science has no real answers...yet. Pan to another component I’m exploring.

The waves are created by additive operations... and exactly how do they “know” how to add in such a way where their “databases” unite “just right” to keep all the data in order across a new principal table?

My questions are aimed at exposing the true nature of waves:

How much data is stored in the wave?
What is the mysterious infinite-bit medium the wave is “disturbing” to reflect it? Does it exist only in the wave itself, a more blanket aether-like phemonon, or both?
What is the brain’s true relationship to the wave, vs. say, “something else” in the being that may be processing elsewhere? The waves are doing it, why not the being? (Stake-burning question!)
How many dimensions are truly involved to do this? Is it “really” 1D? Or nonlocality and entanglement involved even at the wave level, not just particle?
How is data embedded as essentially “nested numeric tables,” then “flattened,” but then able to afford “deep extraction” and data mining after flattening to dimensionless binary data reflecting only the parent wave, but which also “implicitly” points to the retrospective database it came from?
Do the waves themselves carry “metadata” check-bits of sorts to instruct themselves to add to other waves in specific ways?

Etc. etc.

 

The Information is stored in the shape of the wave and how it evolves over time.

With mutual respect ,that's I think (3) times where this question was answered.

Question as stated in post #1 :

Where and how is the note "stored" in the wave? Is there any current theory on how to access that information?

There is no need for words like mysteriously, no medium,essentially infinite et cetera used here without definition.

The exercise with the spreadsheet illustrates how information can be added and removed from a wave function.

Have you tried it?

The derivative of a signal brings zero new information. Rate of change is an extant property of any changing signal.

How is there no medium?

Clearly you are unaware of what you don't know and are unwilling to change that . The expression "not even wrong comes" to mind.

See my reply above to get the full picture. And there is no medium in space unless you believe in an aether. Waves are disturbances in something. If you can’t see my questions as legitimate, as bogosport has for now pages, who is intelligent and does not feel I’m a troll, feel free to remain a spectator and not reply condescendingly about “not knowing what I don’t know” when you really are simply admitting you don’t want to or for some reason can’t speak to the gist of our fluid discourse that I get the impression you really haven’t read thoroughly, dismissing me as a know-nothing.

This statement, “The exercise with the spreadsheet illustrates how information can be added and removed from a wave function” frankly means you obviously haven’t read and/or cognized at all what we’re discussing. And if I sound biting, it’s because you’re the first to bite, sorry. I’m not saying information can’t be “added or removed from or to a wave” whatsoever. Literally whatsoever. This is well-established science!

And “The Information is stored in the shape of the wave and how it evolves over time” says literally nothing about how it’s organized, how it maintains integrity, where it’s stored, knows how to conjoin with other waves, etc. which is the very point!

”Mediums”, “mysteries,” and similar words are very much apart of conjecture when endeavoring to push science forward with no existing lexicon for unchartered territory. We do not have all the answers, and often they come from unsuspecting places.