Oh there is another dimension to this also. That is the stereoscopic dimension where we actually have two recordings to work with each from a different angle, and the position of all of the instruments are known relative to the microphones. That adds a lot of good information to the process.

 

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.

Mediums, mysteries, etc, are very much apart of conjecture when endeavoring to push science forward in territory unexplored. We do not have nearly all the answers! and often they come from unsuspecting places.

 

Oh there is another dimension to this also. That is the stereoscopic dimension where we actually have two recordings to work with each from a different angle, and the position of all of the instruments are known relative to the microphones. That adds a lot of good information to the process.

Yes! Yet another “dimension” to the list of questions.

 

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.

Please Please Please review the basic literature. There are many many points which will become clear.

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!

This lucidly illustrates that changing the waveshape changes the information in it and changing the information changes the waveshape.

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!

Please see any number of references regarding linear superposition of acoustic and electrical sources.Here are a few to get you started.

https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html
https://ophysics.com/w2b.html
http://www.solved-problems.com/circ...65/ac-circuit-analysis-different-frequencies/

”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.

Please define words of this type.I can only guess at what is meant by them.


Oh...And when did we switch from acoustical and electrical waves in circuits to waves in free space?
That's another topic with many similarities to this and many differences.

 

I appreciate the effort. But you’re not still seeing what I’m asking for some reason. I’m aware of the basics you cite.

Superposition and other baseline precepts in those links does not elucidate the infinite-bit, nested, “multi-tier” storage facilities of waves and their capacity to instantly store, join, and and collate data, even after “flattening the info,” or where and how this data is stored *in what medium*. We’re discussing acoustic and electrical waves depending on the context.

Also, as bogosport said, “there is no information in the wave” only numbers. I’m discussing the underlying phenomena that drives the very links you cite. Others are able to get the questions, so it’s not me who isn’t in the wrong here, sorry.

 

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

Electromagnetic waves -- the kind that can travel through outer space -- have a medium that we call the electromagnetic field. Our most accurate physical theories posit that space is comprised of several fundamental fields, the EM field being one of them. The primary physical difference between the "vacuum" of deep space and the space in your room is that, in deep space, the various fundamental fields are near their ground (lowest energy potential) state. In contrast, the fields that comprise the space in your room are jumping about with oscillatory energy, i.e., waves. Some of these fields interact with each other, and it is these interactions that are responsible for all the phenomena we observe. The laws of physics are our attempt to explain how these fields behave and interact with each other.

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.

You assume autonomy and infinite resolution, but neither are necessary nor implied. With respect to autonomy, both the wavelings and the composite wave obey the same laws of physics, which is no surprise as they are indeed the same thing. It seems like you're thinking of a composite wave somewhat as a school bus with a whole bunch of seats for however many independent wavelings want a ride. But this is entirely inaccurate. There is no composite wave without the wavelings; remove a single waveling and you'll have an entirely different composite wave, not the same bus with one less used "seat". The composite wave is 100% dependent on each and every one of its wavelings, and every waveling behaves deterministically according to the same laws of physics. There is no autonomy.

With respect to infinite resolution ("infinite-bit storage"), we know that this cannot be the case, even in principle. Even beyond QM uncertainty relations, infinite resolution implies infinite information, which requires infinite energy, which is unphysical. At some level of zoom there can be no new information. Note that, as far as human perception is concerned, our limits of resolution are far more coarse than what is possible in principle. In the case of auditory information, we can't do much better than about 20-bits worth of information.

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.

The "organization" is a consequence of physical laws; waves mix linearly because that's how the universe behaves. Mix clay in a jar of water and eventually it will "organize" at the bottom of the jar.

The phrase "3D sounds" is presumptive. Sound is the perception of an acoustic event, and such events have one degree of freedom: they modulate air pressure. We can "place" a sound in our mental map of 3D space because we have two ears, and a brain wired for such things. The brain localizes sound in 3D primarily by comparing the timing differences between the arrival of the acoustic energy at each ear. The brain also uses frequency/amplitude cues to determine if the acoustic event is close (high amplitude, lots of high-frequency content) or far away (lower amplitude, attenuated high frequencies). But for all this, the event itself -- the source of the information -- was a 1D phenomenon.

I think the 1D vs 3D confusion is the crux of your mystery. It's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve that 3D information can be somehow loss-lessly compressed into a 1D form, retaining all the original information. In information science, this would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Such skepticism is highly warranted! If you agree that this is the fundamental issue, we should focus on the dimensionality of information sources.

As for where the wavelings are stored, I think this is an awkward way of thinking about it. The source of information is the thing that causes oscillations, i.e., the oscillations encode the information. When the information source is coupled to a suitable transducer (e.g., your vocal chords, a piano, an FM transmitter), the oscillations become waves in the environment. These waves are created intact with all their waveling components already in place; remember, the wave is all the wavelings. As a physical phenomenon, the wave is a periodic undulation of the energy state of some medium. The information source modulates these undulations, thereby temporarily storing the information in the medium, which gets carried throughout the environment in the form of waves. The waves aren't stored anywhere, because the waves are the medium; we're just modulating the medium (making waves) to transfer information.

I should emphasize that the physical aspects of the wave -- e.g., is it a three-dimensional spherical wave in air, or a 2D transverse EM wave, or whatever -- is independent from the information that the wave carries. A wave can be 42-dimensional and carry with it zero information, or 1D information, or anything up to 42D.

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.

Presumably you're aware that aether theory is scientifically dead, ruthlessly murdered by special relativity. The essential difference between the aether and our modern notion of quantum fields is that the aether was taken to be a substance within space, which made it a universal rest frame. Einstein showed us that such a notion is unphysical. In contrast, quantum fields, like the EM field, are not defined as privileged rest frames, which makes them compatible with special relativity. In the modern view, quantum fields are space, not some substance within space.

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.

The "no two objects can occupy the same space" is an edict from human intuition, and not true of the universe at large. Even the seemingly simple phrase "same space" is not a well-defined notion. That said, we do know that bosons can occupy the same quantum state (which is the physically meaningful way of describing the idea behind "same space"), with the most obvious example being visible light in the form of lasers. Under restrictive conditions, we can also get fermions to do the same (e.g., super conducting electron-pairs). I'm at a loss, however, to see how any of this applies to acoustic waves.

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.

And, as I showed in my last post, the number of possible encodings in 2 seconds of CD audio is unfathomably larger than "millions", and we only need 44.1 kilobytes to store any one of them. Why do you think we'd need yottabytes worth of data?

Numbers have no meaning unless they are mapped to "something" in space and time.

This is an awkward phrasing. Numbers are a mathematical concept that seem to exist only in our minds. Audio CDs don't contain numbers, they contain "pits" and "non pits". WAV files don't contain numbers, they contain relative voltage levels and/or magnetic domains. When we give physical phenomena numerical values, we do so strictly in our minds. A microphone converts acoustic energy to electromagnetic energy, which an ADC measures. The ADC stores these measurements electromagnetically, which a DAC can read and drive a speaker with. No where in the signal path are there any numbers except in our minds.

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?

Again, it really helps to be clear on the distinction between a thing and a representation of the thing. A filter as a thing is a physical device that works mechanically and/or electromechanically. Physical filters take physical inputs and produce physical outputs; they do not consume or produce numbers. Note that a DSP chip (or a computer running MATLAB) is a physical thing, an electromechanical machine. We can represent a filter with a mathematical model, which does consume streams of numbers to produce other streams of numbers. But the representation is not the thing; it only exists in our minds.

The point of all this is to steer clear of the confusion that comes from ascribing properties to a physical process based on the chosen representations. Don't let the nebulous notion of numbers cloud the issue.

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?

This doesn't make sense to me. The composite (aka "parent") wave is the set of wavelings, so the voltage fluctuations (which are eventually stored in a file) are the voltage fluctuations of the wavelings. There is no sense in which the composite waveform is separate or distinct from its wavelings. Is there something about that statement that you don't agree with?

 

Also, as bogosport said, “there is no information in the wave” only numbers.

Just to note that I don't believe I ever said such a thing, since it's quite opposite of what I think. Perhaps you misinterpreted my claim that the wave itself is not the information? In that claim, I used the sequence of numbers (samples from a wave) to show that the information exists independently of the wave. Not a big deal, just wanted to be clear.

On the more general topic of seemingly naive questions -- the yes, but why? or how is this possible? kind -- I find they can be of great value in learning about a subject, both for the asker and the answerer. These are the types of questions I tend to ask myself while learning, as trying to answer them will quickly reveal the holes in my conceptual understanding. I don't consider myself well-versed in an idea unless and until I can explain it to someone who has more curiosity than background knowledge. That someone is always me at the beginning of any intellectual journey, but even after I've done enough work to consider myself competent, I find that trying to answer someone else's "silly" questions helps me to strengthen my understanding.

As long as the person asking is genuinely curious and open minded -- and I get the sense that Jennifer Solomon is -- I'm truly happy to dive into the conceptual murk and try to find clarity with them.

 

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.


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

But that is in fact the question! Imagine a large hall, filled to the brim with people, all speaking at once. Separating individual voices and words in such a case can be quite a challenge, maybe even impossible. Worst still, the additive nature of waves means that they can increase in amplitude (volume) far beyond the capabilities of the the microphone and, if not filtered properly, might even produce distortion in the playback hardware (speakers). So that magical parent-wave stuff you're talking about only *works* when all of the conditions are just right. Not too much noise, neither too quiet. In other words, low-entropy systems allow us to do things like separate the strokes of a violin from the rest of the orchestra. This feat however is in and of itself a very tricky one. Back in the old days you might just create a filter for some range of frequencies in order to try to isolate an instrument from a track of music, but that method generally suffers from a lot of undesirable artifacts. AI is capable of much more faithful reconstructions, which is basically where the technology is going these days.

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?

Numbers don't exist "anywhere", they're nothing more than a human invention. And yes the universe does indeed obey mathematical principles, but our symbolic manipulations are still just crude visualizations when you get right down to it. You say table, I say a coulomb field capable of repelling the clump of atoms that is your coffee cup in such a way that the two never actually touch. Who is really right, you or me? The answer is neither. But it doesn't actually matter because all you really need to know is that your calculations match up within some level of precision to whatever you'd expect, given the limited nature of human understanding. Do you really need to understand what electricity "actually "is" in order to work with it? Of course not. You build a mental model, test it, and refine it. Doesn't change the fact that it's just a model. It's not "the thing itself".

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.

Waves carry data only insomuch as we can modulate them in ways which, again, can be analyzed using a variety of mathematical methods. Light waves are oscillations of the medium of space but sound requires interaction between atoms. (Hence no sound in a vacuum.) Sound in gasses is interesting because what you're actually hearing is transmitted in a way that's more like Brownian motion than it is an actual, physical wave. In other words, sound as we know it is mostly just a "phantom" effect!

 

Oh there is another dimension to this also. That is the stereoscopic dimension where we actually have two recordings to work with each from a different angle, and the position of all of the instruments are known relative to the microphones. That adds a lot of good information to the process.

That's a bit more advanced but what you're basically talking about is constructing matrices from the data, and yes this opens up the possibility of holographic-type storage and retrieval capabilities. Which isn't to say that such a thing involves "infinite" information of course, it doesn't.

 

Just to note that I don't believe I ever said such a thing, since it's quite opposite of what I think. Perhaps you misinterpreted my claim that the wave itself is not the information? In that claim, I used the sequence of numbers (samples from a wave) to show that the information exists independently of the wave. Not a big deal, just wanted to be clear.

On the more general topic of seemingly naive questions -- the yes, but why? or how is this possible? kind -- I find they can be of great value in learning about a subject, both for the asker and the answerer. These are the types of questions I tend to ask myself while learning, as trying to answer them will quickly reveal the holes in my conceptual understanding. I don't consider myself well-versed in an idea unless and until I can explain it to someone who has more curiosity than background knowledge. That someone is always me at the beginning of any intellectual journey, but even after I've done enough work to consider myself competent, I find that trying to answer someone else's "silly" questions helps me to strengthen my understanding.

As long as the person asking is genuinely curious and open minded -- and I get the sense that Jennifer Solomon is -- I'm truly happy to dive into the conceptual murk and try to find clarity with them.

Are you calling my questions... "silly??"

My background, as I stated, is more on the order of computer science, the nature of logic and reason and the mechanics of the mind, and the questions I'm tackling lie outside the tools of math and physics, and inform them both. I recognize I'm in an electronics forum here, so this isn't really the place to discuss this stuff technically, but you and others seem to oblige (and excellently so), so I'm continuing to talk. It must be obviously some kind of entertainment, or a quarantine distraction?

I think the 1D vs 3D confusion is the crux of your mystery. It's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve that 3D information can be somehow loss-lessly compressed into a 1D form, retaining all the original information. In information science, this would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Such skepticism is highly warranted! If you agree that this is the fundamental issue, we should focus on the dimensionality of information sources.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner.

I'm going to respond to yours and xox's last replies here — both of you are the one's consistently tracking the discussion. So that we don't rabbit-trail into oblivion, by creating orphaned paragraph-lings, I figured I'd broad-stroke reply here.

I'd like to start with the fact that you both make the assertions that waves aren't "infinite-bit." I must humbly disagree with that with the below mini-discourse that is a "Cliff's notes" of my investigation on the topic.

Much everything that we discuss in science goes back to the "phenomenon" we're using to actually "do it" — AKA the "mind": so to my logic, most of the analysis has to happen there to get anywhere "new."

In George Boole's "Laws of Thought", which I'm sure you're well aware of, the derivative-of-Aristotle treatise on reason, the basis of all computational science — he denotes the number "1" as "A universe of thinkable thoughts."

(Note the curious side-note overlap between "quantity" and "logic state" here: Computers don't have any understanding of "quantity" or "magnitude". They work with logic states only — so quantity and magnitude are separate concepts "post-fixed" to numbers only when they're married with "objects" {e.g., "5 bananas," "200 pounds", "16 trolls"}; to be defined below).

That's a very heavy duty phrase Boole uses — "universe of."

Essentially, the "mind" — and not the brain (so get the stake and the diesel ready, because I'm about to draw a distinction) is where what we as a race call "dimensional information" is derived and structured. The universe is unintuitive? Then I have no problem with an "invisible 5D dimensional CPU and NSSD (non-solid-state-disc)".

I say this because, quite simply—and this is pretty pathetically profound:

There are no dimensional objects, as we describe them, existing or animated in the grey matter. I repeat: "as described." If one let's this fact sink in, it has enormous philosophical implications.

This incredibly is a simple observable fact. An object such as a "cube" is NOT in the brain as described "by it".

If we do not use the phrase "as described", we may reflexively insist that it actually "must exist there." But it does not. No if's, and's, or but's about this:

A cube, for example, with 8 hard rigid corners, and composing infinite points constructing lines of infinitely scalable "size-less" structure does not exist physically in that small space in between our ears. This is one of the most profound, yet very simple illusory elements that drives my thinking.

One doesn't need to do this to prove the obvious, but a CT scan of the brain when someone is "Thinking of a cube," for example, shows there is simply ZERO cube of any size moving around, or other dimensional objects with their myriad properties like it: only synaptic, neuronal activity that seems to be "reacting" to the invocation of the mind's 3D thought, which I believe in actuality is a 5D space housing 3D objects that move as "4D time."

That means "3D things" are "thought of" or "invoked" as the basis of thought in the mind, interrelated in seemingly infinite ways "somehow" coming "in and out of existence" while "moving in time" and while also remaining as discretely identifiable phenomena. There's a veritable multiverse of universes in each of our minds. And by the way, this is only happening in a "living" mind. A mind in a casket doesn't care.

"What" are we describing here? Some kind of meta-substance. Perhaps, "5D Metaspace." If not, nothing exists. A force is a substance with no properties yet we can discuss them. The mental tools we employ to describe forces with "no discernible properties" have no discernible properties themselves from our own vantage point, like a camera that cannot take a picture of itself.

So what "universe" are we talking about "outside ourselves?" Only one that we can first refer to and define in our "thought universe" with our mind's "internal senses" — the thoughts we can "see, hear, taste, touch" internally first, and that I would distinguish between a machine's "sensors." The "external universe" is some kind of manifestation of the one we first "see" when we close our eyes.

So given that the mind's "definition engine" (which no numeric computing device has, because it does not distinguish between "something and nothing" only represent it by 1 and 0), appears to have 3 principal, separate observable components:

1) "Discretely" Numeric
2) Conceptually "infinite" (continuous)
3) Real or "true" 3D geometric, interrelated with item #2

"Information" could be defined as the 3D geometries, their unique "voice" (complex wave timbres with their correlated harmonics), and then the "numbers" that "label" these voices and objects.

What the mind first calls "Reality" might therefore be hypothetically defined as the "set of infinite space that constitutes real, animated 3D elements".

AKA, again, that "Universe of thinkable thoughts" definition is really a description for "Multiverse": or convoluted "Universes of universes of thinkable thoughts." 1 is the "state or presence of an existent infinity" and 0 is the "state or presence of the potential of one."

Since waves don't exist without objects "creating them," it's imperative to connect their identity to the object that's "generating the wave." They first exist in the mind.

Given that mathematically we define a "real" dimensional line as having infinite points, in which the entire basis of all dimensional thought lies, "real thoughts" actually reflect FIRST in the mind's reality before it reflects our "external finite one" where there is a distinguishing between "observer", and the "observed" (a concept that first exists as the basis of consciousness in the mind).

A wave is first a "voice" of a "true" object in the mind.

The voice must also logically have infinite points if what is vibrating to create the object is also infinite. Feynman also echoes this when he attributes the same characteristic to our "external" universe" with "Every point in the universe is composed of infinite equations."

Waves are infinite-bit by every form of logical deduction using this framework, anyway.

A piano in real life is first a piano in the mind. You can play the piano in the mind, "hear" the waves of every individual note. The waves are "wavelings" of the "piano essence object".

In the way functions are objects in object-oriented programming, the wave is a function of the object, but it too is an object.

It follows this is where we can see "embedded wavelings" nested-correlations as a direct intrinsic organized reflection of "real 3D objects" vibrating their essence, and their nested correlations {"house in city, in town, on street, etc".} where a number can now be defined as the "distinct label" of a "distinct infinity of infinities."

Binary sequences are therefore signifiers of distinct infinities that describe 3D objects moving in 4D space (the space itself perhaps a 5D fabric) in the mind. A continuous phenomenon like a wave having infinite points—a point being a "0" or "1"— there is therefore infinite bits of information to describe each point on the wave, because each is itself another multiverse (consistent with Feynman, again). We don't need all the information to get a decent snapshot of it, but it doesn't mean there isn't infinite resolution going well beyond it. How many "cubes" are in the single cube in the mind? An infinite number of them, because you can continue to pull a "new cube" out of it like lighting a new match from an existing one. We're describing the behavior of a meta-substance.

The "matrix" we live in is a derivative, finite, programmatic holographic piece of hardware and software that is a digitized version of the more sophisticated reality going on in our mind.

The brain is a mechanical device that is involved in regulating pleasure chemicals and experiential release of them, and mechanical movement, but "knowledge" is not in it as described "by it" (because it's not being described by "it" — it's the mind's doing). This is the greatest illusion of all time in "my mind."

As bogosport said, the "greats" like Shannon and Turing have shaped our understanding of numeric processing, but "what information is" is a mystery. This is what we're delving into here.

So no, I don't say the "wave itself" IS information exactly, for the reasons above.

I say it is the "voice" of the information. The information IS the "objects and their movement" within the mind. The waves are their "voice." The waves in reality are "Traveling number keys" that "unlock the corresponding 3D reality" within the person "hearing them". This is how you can hear and interrelate any combination of waves and the mind can instantaneously discern and store their voices within the mind's "reality" that you are an "observer" of. A 2-second song sample can "hit your ear" in your mind first, before it hits it in "real life", and the parent wave is an object "function call" that "unlocks" or "unleashes" a whole host of "environments" pre-existent in the being — which are also "objects" involving the song. Song(2_seconds) "double-clicks" on a whole host of other waves that unlock more "object realities" — the objects singer(), instruments(), studio(), vacation_memories(), location_first_heard(), best_friends_preference(), and a host of others in real time, all kept discrete, but interrelating in this "environment of the mind."

And I believe the bus analogy of the wave is actually legit, because while the bus itself IS the "parent" wave, it is ALSO the housing of the wavelings. 6 "houses" 2 and 3 but 6 is still 6. Every number houses the others. If they couldn't be kept distinct from their constituents, there wouldn't be a need to distinguish between them.

2 and 3 are still "2 and 3". 2 and 3 are on the bus of 6. 6 is a "universe of thinkable thoughts" involving 2 and 3, which are their own "universe of thinkable thoughts." The only difference between 6, 2, and 3, is in their correlation to the infinite objects they represent. Like the piano is, the guitar, the choir in the original analogy: All of them exist as objects in the mind's space first. Stored perhaps like a multidimensional array in computer science, or a 3D spreadsheet. Each element of the array houses a unique wave "shape" like "teeth on a key" that carries their own wavelings. This is how the 3D dimensional reality can be losslessly "flattened" to 1D. The 1D wave is a variable "pointer" to the "real" original variable, that is the 3D one. The information is stored in the object, the wave is the key to unlock it. The wave is not really the information in this model. It is the messenger of it.

A real "3d object" could therefore be considered a particle or a wave, and this is the origin of where the "duality" exists. In your mind you can picture the piano turning into the wave itself. The object can be a particle or a wave and still be discrete as an identifiable thing.

Tesla and other subscribed to an aether, and didn't believe in relativity's models. I think nature is hyper-intelligent to the point that it actually can deceive us into thinking certain models are applicable in reality, but actually run parallel to them yielding the illusion of factuality instead. I don't believe the phenomenon of "gravity" is the result of the bending of "space-time" either, for example, and neither did Tesla.

This is a serious Cliff's Notes of my studies and theories, but we've drilled down to the "theoretics" I swim in... I hope it made 40%+ sense in such an abridged format.

Feel free to ask for clarification, and I look forward to hear your thoughts.

 

Are you calling my questions... "silly??"

My background, as I stated, is more on the order of computer science, the nature of logic and reason and the mechanics of the mind, vs. highly granular physics and math (because the questions I'm tackling lie outside the tools of math and physics, and inform them both.) I recognize I'm in an electronics forum here, so this isn't really the place to discuss this stuff technically, but you and others seem to oblige (and excellently so), so I'm continuing to talk. It must be obviously some kind of entertainment, or a quarantine distraction?




Ding ding ding... we have a winner.

I'm going to respond to yours and xox's last replies here — both of you are the one's consistently tracking the discussion. So that we don't rabbit-trail into oblivion, by creating orphaned paragraph-lings, I figured I'd broad-stroke reply here.

I'd like to start with the fact that you both make the assertions that waves aren't "infinite-bit." I must humbly disagree with that with the below mini-discourse that is a "Cliff's notes" of my investigation on the topic.

Much everything that we discuss in science goes back to the "phenomon" we're using to actually "do it" — AKA the "mind": so to my logic, most of the analysis has to happen there to get anywhere "new."

In George Boole's "Laws of Thought", which I'm sure you're well aware of, the derivative-of-Aristotle treatise on reason, the basis of all computational science — he denotes the number "1" as "A universe of thinkable thoughts."

(Note the curious side-note overlap between "quantity" and "logic state" here: Computers don't have any understanding of "quantity" or "magnitude". They work with logic states only — so quantity and magnitude are separate concept affixed to numbers only when they're married with "objects" {e.g., "5 bananas," "200 pounds", "16 trolls"}; to be defined below).

That's a very heavy duty phrase Boole uses — "universe of."

Essentially, the "mind" — and not the brain (so get the stake and the diesel ready, because I'm about to draw a distinction) is where what we as a race call "dimensional information" is derived and structured. The universe is unintuitive? Then I have no problem with an "invisible 5D dimensional CPU and NSSD (non-solid-state-disc)".

I say this because, quite simply—and this is pretty pathetically profound:

There are no dimensional objects, as we describe them, existing or animated in the grey matter. I repeat: "as described." If one let's this fact sink in, it has enormous philosophical implications.

This incredibly is a simple observable fact. An object such as a "cube" is NOT in the brain as described "by it".

If we do not use the phrase "as described", we may reflexively insist that it actually "must exist there." But it does not. No if's, and's, or but's about this:

A cube, for example, with 8 hard rigid corners, an composing infinite points constructing lines of infinitely scalable "size-less" structure does not exist physically in that small space in between our ears. This is one of the most profound, yet very simple illusory elements that drives my thinking.

One doesn't need to do this to prove the obvious, but a CT scan of the brain when someone is "Thinking of a cube," for example, shows there is simply ZERO cube of any size moving around, or other dimensional objects with their myriad properties like it: only synaptic, neuronal activity that seems to be "reacting" to the invocation of the mind's 3D thought, which I believe in actuality is a 5D space housing 3D objects that move as "4D time."

That means "3D things" are "thought of" or "invoked" as the basis of thought in the mind, interrelated in seemingly infinite ways "somehow" coming "in and out of existence" while "moving in time" and while also remaining as discretely identifiable phenomena. There's a veritable multiverse of universes in each of our minds. And by the way, this is only happening in a "living" mind. A mind in a casket doesn't care.

"What" are we describing here? Some kind of meta-substance. Perhaps, "5D Metaspace." If not, nothing exists. A force is a substance with no properties yet we can discuss them. The mental tools we employ to describe forces with "no discernible properties" have no discernible properties themselves from our own vantage point, like a camera that cannot take a picture of itself.

So what "universe" are we talking about "outside ourselves?" Only one that we can first refer to and define in our "thought universe" with our mind's "internal senses" — the thoughts we can "see, hear, taste, touch" internally first, and that I would distinguish between a machine's "sensors." The "external universe" is some kind of manifestation of the one we first "see" when we close our eyes.

So given that the mind's "definition engine" (which no numeric computing device has, because it does not distinguish between "something and nothing" only represent it by 1 and 0), appears to have 3 principal, separate observable components:

1) "Discretely" Numeric
2) Conceptually "infinite" (continuous)
3) Real or "true" 3D geometric, interrelated with item #2

"Information" could be defined as the 3D geometries, their unique "voice" (complex wave timbres with their correlated harmonics), and then the "numbers" that "label" these voices and objects.

What the mind first calls "Reality" might therefore be hypothetically defined as the "set of infinite space that constitutes real, animated 3D elements".

AKA, again, that "Universe of thinkable thoughts" definition is really a description for "Multiverse": or convoluted "Universes of universes of thinkable thoughts." 1 is the "state or presence of an existent infinity" and 0 is the "state or presence of the potential of one."

Since waves don't exist without objects "creating them," it's imperative to connect their identity to the object that's "generating the wave." They first exist in the mind.

Given that mathematically we define a "real" dimensional line as having infinite points, in which the entire basis of all dimensional thought lies, "real thoughts" actually reflect FIRST in the mind's reality before it reflects our "external finite one" where there is a distinguishing between "observer", and the "observed" (a concept that first exists as the basis of consciousness in the mind).

A wave is first a "voice" of a "true" object in the mind.

The voice must also logically have infinite points if what is vibrating to create the object is also infinite. Feynman also echoes this when he attributes the same characteristic to our "external" universe" with "Every point in the universe is composed of infinite equations."

Waves are infinite-bit by every form of logical deduction using this framework, anyway.

A piano in real life is first a piano in the mind. You can play the piano in the mind, "hear" the waves of every individual note. The waves are "wavelings" of the "piano essence object".

In the way functions are objects in object-oriented programming, the wave is a function of the object, but it too is an object.

It follows this is where we can see "embedded wavelings" nested-correlations as a direct intrinsic organized reflection of "real 3D objects" vibrating their essence, and their nested correlations {"house in city, in town, on street, etc".} where a number can now be defined as the "distinct label" of a "distinct infinity of infinities."

Binary sequences are therefore signifiers of distinct infinities that describe 3D objects moving in 4D space (the space itself perhaps a 5D fabric) in the mind. A continuous phenomenon like a wave having infinite points—a point being a "0" or "1"— there is therefore infinite bits of information to describe each point on the wave, because each is itself another multiverse (consistent with Feynman, again). We don't need all the information to get a decent snapshot of it, but it doesn't mean there isn't infinite resolution going well beyond it. How many "cubes" are in the single cube in the mind? An infinite number of them, because you can continue to pull a "new cube" out of it like lighting a new match from an existing one. We're describing the behavior of a meta-substance.

The "matrix" we live in is a derivative, finite, programmatic holographic piece of hardware and software that is a digitized version of the more sophisticated reality going on in our mind.

The brain is a mechanical device that is involved in regulating pleasure chemicals and experiential release of them, and mechanical movement, but "knowledge" is not in it as described "by it" (because it's not being described by "it" — it's the mind's doing). This is the greatest illusion of all time in "my mind."

As bogosport said, the "greats" like Shannon and Turing have shaped our understanding of numeric processing, but "what information is" is a mystery. This is what we're delving into here.

So no, I don't say the "wave itself" IS information exactly, for the reasons above.

I say it is the "voice" of the information. The information IS the "objects and their movement" within the mind. The waves are their "voice." The waves in reality are "Traveling number keys" that "unlock the corresponding 3D reality" within the person "hearing them". This is how you can hear and interrelate any combination of waves and the mind can instantaneously discern and store their voices within the mind's "reality" that you are an "observer" of. A 2-second song sample can "hit your ear" in your mind first, before it hits it in "real life", and the parent wave is like a "function call" that unlocks a whole host of "environments" pre-existent in the being — which are also "objects" involving the song. Song(2_seconds) "double-clicks" on a whole host of other waves that unlock more "object realities" — the objects singer(), instruments(), studio(), vacation_memories(), location_first_heard(), best_friends_preference(), and a host of others in real time, all kept discrete, but interrelating in this "environment of the mind."

And I believe the bus analogy of the wave is actually legit, because while the bus itself IS the "parent" wave, it is ALSO the housing of the wavelings. 6 "houses" 2 and 3 but 6 is still 6. Every number houses the others. If they couldn't be kept distinct from their constituents, there wouldn't be a need to distinguish between them.

2 and 3 are still "2 and 3". 2 and 3 are on the bus of 6. 6 is a "universe of thinkable thoughts" involving 2 and 3, which are their own "universe of thinkable thoughts." The only difference between 6, 2, and 3, is in their correlation to the infinite objects they represent. Like the piano is, the guitar, the choir in the original analogy: All of them exist as objects in the mind's space first. Stored perhaps like a multidimensional array in computer science, or a 3D spreadsheet. Each element of the array houses a unique wave "shape" like "teeth on a key" that carries their own wavelings. This is how the 3D dimensional reality can be losslessly "flattened" to 1D. The 1D wave is a variable "pointer" to the "real" original variable, that is the 3D one. The information is stored in the object, the wave is the key to unlock it. The wave is not really the information in this model. It is the messenger of it.

A real "3d object" could therefore be considered a particle or a wave, and this is the origin of where the "duality" exists. In your mind you can picture the piano turning into the wave itself. The object can be a particle or a wave and still be discrete as an identifiable thing.

Tesla and other subscribed to an aether, and didn't believe in relativity's models. I think nature is hyper-intelligent to the point that it actually can deceive us into thinking certain models are applicable in reality, but actually run parallel to them yielding the illusion of factuality instead. I don't believe the phenomenon of "gravity" is the result of the bending of "space-time" either, for example, and neither did Tesla.

This is a serious Cliff's Notes of my studies and theories, but we've drilled down to the "theoretics" I swim in... I hope it made 40%+ sense in such an abridged format.

Feel free to ask for clarification, and I look forward to hear your thoughts.

Well frankly it sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. You might as well study astrology or numerology, honestly. But whatever, you're interested in the metaphysical angle. That's fine. But just don't confuse it with science, because it isn't.

 

So you are trying to discover what information is? Is that the goal?

 

Well frankly it sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. You might as well study astrology or numerology, honestly. But whatever, you're interested in the metaphysical angle. That's fine. But just don't confuse it with science, because it isn't.

Where is it “nonsense” exactly? I’d like to know what exactly doesn’t sound theoretically plausible. Metaphysical thinking informs physical thinking often.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Tesla

Newton spent more time with these subjects than the physical sciences, and that is a fact.

You might dismiss Boole’s conjectures as ramblings at first sight.

 

So you are trying to discover what information is? Is that the goal?

I would say yes, and how it behaves and informs this dimension.

 

Just to note that I don't believe I ever said such a thing, since it's quite opposite of what I think. Perhaps you misinterpreted my claim that the wave itself is not the information? In that claim, I used the sequence of numbers (samples from a wave) to show that the information exists independently of the wave. Not a big deal, just wanted to be clear.

Yes, apologies—that’s what I meant.

 

Where is it “nonsense” exactly? I’d like to know what exactly doesn’t sound theoretically plausible. Metaphysical thinking informs physical thinking often.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Tesla

Newton spent more time with these subjects than the physical sciences, and that is a fact.

You might dismiss Boole’s conjectures as ramblings at first sight.

Seriously, I’m surprised you dismissed that as “nonsense.” Have you ever cracked open Boole’s Laws of Thought? Nothing I said above could be considered too terribly veering from that very “out there” unphysical department of hypothetical thought, and yet it’s 100% science. And Boolean principles undergird our ability to have this very conversation. My post above is grounded in principled scientific conjecture about very abstract concepts that may gird reality. If you are not open to such things, you are not open to what may be the Oz behind the curtain. How is entanglement and the Uncertainty Principle any more crazy?

Too bad you won’t give it thought.

 

I would say yes, and how it behaves and informs this dimension.

Well i dont think it is nonsense, but you probably have to dive deep into quantum theory to reach that goal. I dont think classical theory can help much because everything seems so statistically sound and it doesnt go any deeper than that. In quantum theory we have entanglement which seems to defy the physical and it seems maybe that is what you are after.
But i cant say i think we need this to understand orchestra music which was the start of this discussion.
What might be an interesting test is to convert a page of text into frequencies and then try to decode it back into the text it came from.

What is already interesting is that the conversion of a .bmp file (or general image) to a .jpg file does just that. During the encode phase the image is turned into a bunch of frequencies and those frequencies are stored on disk with some compression. During the decode phase those frequencies are turned back into bytes that the original file had, possibly with some artifacts for lossy .jpg's. For lossless .jpg's there is no frequency conversion during the encode. I think this tells us that the conversion to frequencies are approximate however the approximation can be made very good so it is hard to tell the lossy jpg from the original bmp (or general image). The .jpg basically uses an DFFT converted to the discrete cosine transform.
So maybe you could start there. There are a LOT of bytes in some .jpg's and when reconstructed they look pretty darn good provided the quality factor is not set too low. This tells me again that even in the non ideal cases we get very reasonable results.

It also implies that even though the original information might be theoretically infinite we dont need all of it to get reasonable
results. But then again we might ask if the information really is infinite. The air acts as a low pass filter (and also second derivative effects at a distance) so perhaps the listener is already limited in how much information they are really receiving.

The first (and other) derivatives may not actually ADD information to the source but they must allow a better extraction of information at the receiver/decoder end especially with discrete signals. Amplitudes A and B close together represent a higher frequency than A and B farther apart.

 

Well i dont think it is nonsense, but you probably have to dive deep into quantum theory to reach that goal. I dont think classical theory can help much because everything seems so statistically sound and it doesnt go any deeper than that. In quantum theory we have entanglement which seems to defy the physical and it seems maybe that is what you are after.
But i cant say i think we need this to understand orchestra music which was the start of this discussion.
What might be an interesting test is to convert a page of text into frequencies and then try to decode it back into the text it came from.

Well, the conversation morphed from the original query about “where a single note is stored“ and “if it can be accessed and modulated” into “the nature of information embedded in a wave.” And this lead gradually into the nature of info itself.

If you take a read of my mini-treatise there, it implies information is essentially stored in the same “substance” that comprises a force. It has no properties that can be discerned, and it’s all in a “5D” repository, or a database of “real objects” that comprise the very nature of thought itself—a kind of meta-substance that is separate from the brain. We can only “triangulate” what it is, because we are the “camera trying to take a picture of itself.”

Essentially I believe it requires defining numbers, waves and objects as 3 separate, but related phenomena, and beginning in the mind, which is altogether separate from the brain.

 

As an addendum, and I think this deserves a separate post—to further address the question concerning principal waves defined as their wavelings.

Music theory works well to explore this I believe...

On a synth with a split sound patch—left hand playing a G major triad in a piano sound and the right hand playing a D minor triad in a string sound, a new “principal wave” is formed (I go back and forth between parent and principal... if you have a preference, let me know).

The mind can audiate and thus semantically delineate the principal wave as G9, irrespective of timbres used.

As you said, remove any component and it’s no “longer the principal wave.”

However, it could be said that the wavelings composing that G9 are themselves principal waves with their own wavelings: The G major stands alone and the D minor stands alone as both model reference points and observed elements.

In 1D the binary info describes the voltage fluctuations that reflect the G9 chord. But we’re able to spectrographically “get at” the Dm and GM chords that comprise it and all of their “correlated harmonics” that define the strings vs. piano in a “flattened” 1D signal.

The 16-bit 44.1kHz binary info is agnostic to those components and are implied within the parent’s binaries. The parcelability of a lossless “seemingly multi-stem 1D wave” is part of my issue here. That over 2 seconds, with an arc of air movement, we have parcelable multi-stem data.

Because the harmonics are being lossly preserved to be able to:

A) identify and label the G9 chord from a “real” 3D essence
B) identify the timbre and chord of the left hand
C) same for right hand

All in a 1D signal acting like a kind of multitrack.

The mind has a “lexical periodic table” also, as in the case of removing one of the D notes, we still have a G9 principal wave, because there are two different D notes being played, and the removal of one of them does not change the definition of the chord being played.

The definition itself is therefore a “model principal wave” that exists as a reference point, independent of redundant notes and timbres, with technically infinite possibilities comprising that definition there. The mind still rigidly has its “G9” archetype to be able to parse, correlate, and collate the data. No way is this happening in the brain. It has no idea what a model is, to derive “insight” or where it came from as an intention-less, “ground-derived” CPU.

The “G9” token is simultaneously a “model” version as a reference point, and additionally a real-time observed version in first the mind, then in “real life.”

Further to the previous post, I believe the G9 principal wave is the data key that unlocks the existing principal waves “within it” already pre-stored in the being as both “model versions” and observed.

The G9 IS composed and defined as its wavelings but ALSO the bus that “carries” other constituent principal waves.

 

Electromagnetic waves -- the kind that can travel through outer space -- have a medium that we call the electromagnetic field. Our most accurate physical theories posit that space is comprised of several fundamental fields, the EM field being one of them. The primary physical difference between the "vacuum" of deep space and the space in your room is that, in deep space, the various fundamental fields are near their ground (lowest energy potential) state. In contrast, the fields that comprise the space in your room are jumping about with oscillatory energy, i.e., waves. Some of these fields interact with each other, and it is these interactions that are responsible for all the phenomena we observe. The laws of physics are our attempt to explain how these fields behave and interact with each other.

Why make such a distinction between "here" and deep space though? Intense energy fields appear everywhere in the universe. The important thing is that everything is made up of waves, even matter itself. An electron can be converted directly into a photon and vice versa. Also remember that particles aren't completely localized wave-packets either. Their fields spread out into space at the speed of light and go on to mix with all of the other wave-fields careening throughout the universe. It's the constructive and destructive interference patterns of these waves which causes all of the observable phenomena at any given point in space. (Which of course includes the popping in and out of existence of physical particles.)

The phrase "3D sounds" is presumptive. Sound is the perception of an acoustic event, and such events have one degree of freedom: they modulate air pressure. We can "place" a sound in our mental map of 3D space because we have two ears, and a brain wired for such things. The brain localizes sound in 3D primarily by comparing the timing differences between the arrival of the acoustic energy at each ear. The brain also uses frequency/amplitude cues to determine if the acoustic event is close (high amplitude, lots of high-frequency content) or far away (lower amplitude, attenuated high frequencies). But for all this, the event itself -- the source of the information -- was a 1D phenomenon.


I think the 1D vs 3D confusion is the crux of your mystery. It's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve that 3D information can be somehow loss-lessly compressed into a 1D form, retaining all the original information. In information science, this would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Such skepticism is highly warranted! If you agree that this is the fundamental issue, we should focus on the dimensionality of information sources.

Acoustic events originate and operate within the confines of ALL of the physical dimensions of space. Sensor's readings however often are constrained to a single-dimension. And thus the humble sound sample.

This is an awkward phrasing. Numbers are a mathematical concept that seem to exist only in our minds. Audio CDs don't contain numbers, they contain "pits" and "non pits". WAV files don't contain numbers, they contain relative voltage levels and/or magnetic domains. When we give physical phenomena numerical values, we do so strictly in our minds. A microphone converts acoustic energy to electromagnetic energy, which an ADC measures. The ADC stores these measurements electromagnetically, which a DAC can read and drive a speaker with. No where in the signal path are there any numbers except in our minds.


Again, it really helps to be clear on the distinction between a thing and a representation of the thing. A filter as a thing is a physical device that works mechanically and/or electromechanically. Physical filters take physical inputs and produce physical outputs; they do not consume or produce numbers. Note that a DSP chip (or a computer running MATLAB) is a physical thing, an electromechanical machine. We can represent a filter with a mathematical model, which does consume streams of numbers to produce other streams of numbers. But the representation is not the thing; it only exists in our minds.


The point of all this is to steer clear of the confusion that comes from ascribing properties to a physical process based on the chosen representations. Don't let the nebulous notion of numbers cloud the issue.

Yes, exactly! And while we do indeed modulate things in various ways in order to store and extract useful data, the very concept of "information" itself is really just an abstraction of our own design.