The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why don't we switch to 432Hz tuning? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 24th May 2018
  #241
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Well I'm not sure what a 'sacred number believer' is exactly
You, based on this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
If mathematics is a language then the lexicon and syntax can include components that correspond to non-abstract phenomena in the physical world: for example, Sir Martin Rees dicusses 'the power of six' in cosmology, and I can attribute or superimpose any number of mathematical configurations onto the phenomenal world I experience.
Did you even skim the article? He's not saying there's special cosmic power found in the number 6, he's saying that much of the universe's workings can boil down to six significant numbers (IE six variables with particular numeric values) being in place. That's a very very big difference.
2
Share
Old 24th May 2018
  #242
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Totally agree; mathematical patterns are everywhere...except 432. Reification is not scientifically correct but people do it all the time; even dogmatic scientists.

My angle is that the mere relationship of 432 to other numbers (as an abstract concept) is remarkable and an interesting phenomena in it's own right. I think that is the 'sacred' bit - the specialness of it's interactability and the mathematical patterns it creates. I think many people see a divine perfection such forms (although personally I think our sense of what is divine has a root in evolutionary adaptation).
You can choose any mathematical system and discover all kinds of ways to play with the numbers. Choose base 8 or base 6 or base 13 instead of base 10 and you'll find entirely new ways that numbers all play together, and entirely new sequences full of interactibility and patterns.

The fact that patterns can be found in numbers has zero to do with what these numbers represent. The mathematical patterns found within various bases are a completely unrelated variable to anything these numbers represent.

With 432. .

1. switch to base 8 or
2. change the arbitrary length of a second

. . and the whole rationality (not logic) behind the argument that "mathematical patterns correspond in some meaningful way to what the numbers are supposed to represent" completely falls apart because 1. you're dealing with entirely new pattern sequences by simple choice of your counting base and 2. the "cosmic" number patterns you're observing would all correspond to something else.
1
Share
Old 24th May 2018
  #243
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
The Base 10 numerical system is a hegemonic construction of the colonizing Euro-centric oppressive capitalist Patriarchy. Duh.
1
Share
Old 24th May 2018
  #244
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
The Base 10 numerical system is a hegemonic construction of the colonizing Euro-centric oppressive capitalist Patriarchy. Duh.
It has to do with 10 fingers -> start the count over. Which is just the obvious and most easy way for humans to count, going back to primitive culture day 1. If humans had four fingers on each hand we'd all be base 8 and all the "magic" patterns would be entirely different.
Old 24th May 2018
  #245
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I'm no semiotician, but as I understand it, Saussure's primary contribution was his model of linguistic signs which proposes an arbitrary, bilateral relation between a signified and signifier. Key word: arbitrary. And, therefore, potentially dynamic/mutable.
I don't understand where you're going with this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Mathematics is a language that describes numbers and their relationships with other numbers. It is abstract. It can be used to describe and predict physical world phenomena. It should not be confused with them....
I agree. Who is confusing them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees – review

Rees's observations do look fascinating, but as I understand it, these 'six numbers' are more properly six values, not numbers, and that these values are often best represented as formulas. For instance, from the article linked above:


Almost exactly 1036. Not exactly. Not some nice, clean, 'sacred' number. And N's value in base ten is a number involving 36 zeroes. Others of those values are similarly quite large or relatively infinitesimal.

Here's more on Rees' six values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-t...verse#Examples


EDIT: And as newguy1 points out below, there's nothing about 'the power of six' in Rees's writing that I have found -- aside from the fact that he has suggested that there are six critical value ranges outside of which, a universe like ours would be impossible. Others disagree with his ideas.
You're missing the point (as is newguy). Rees is using numbers to symbolise something: on one side of the Saussurean paper is the Universe and on the other Rees's numbers.
Old 24th May 2018
  #246
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You can choose any mathematical system and discover all kinds of ways to play with the numbers.
Obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Choose base 8 or base 6 or base 13 instead of base 10 and you'll find entirely new ways that numbers all play together, and entirely new sequences full of interactibility and patterns.
...and then people will marvel at specific numbers and imbue them with meaning and use them in art and science (as they do).

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
The fact that patterns can be found in numbers has zero to do with what these numbers represent.
I'm not disputing that; is it so hard for you to realise that? It's almost as if you're projecting a strawman argument?

Can you not understand that some people might find the relationship between symbols interesting even if those symbols are abstract and have no physical analogue?


Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
...The mathematical patterns found within various bases are a completely unrelated variable to anything these numbers represent.

With 432. .

1. switch to base 8 or
2. change the arbitrary length of a second

. . and the whole rationality (not logic) behind the argument that "mathematical patterns correspond in some meaningful way to what the numbers are supposed to represent" completely falls apart because 1. you're dealing with entirely new pattern sequences by simple choice of your counting base and 2. the "cosmic" number patterns you're observing would all correspond to something else.
Exactly. So what's your point then?
Old 24th May 2018
  #247
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Exactly. So what's your point then?
The fact that fancy number patterns exist has ZERO relationship to the information that the numbers are being used to describe.

The joys of playing around with base 10 has zero to do with gravity or speed or distance or Hz or anything else numbers are used to describe. They're just fun patterns you can find, unrelated to any particular information. Its an unrelated abstraction with no physical analogue, as you say.

If you enjoy playing with numbers, fine, that's its own thing. But because you find a numerical pattern in base 10 does not mean that the things that happen to fall on those numbers are more "special/cosmic/universal/in tune/etc etc etc."
Old 24th May 2018
  #248
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
The fact that fancy number patterns exist has zero relationship to the information that the numbers are being used to describe.
Utter psychobabble.
Old 24th May 2018
  #249
Lives for gear
 
Lady Gaia's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You can choose any mathematical system and discover all kinds of ways to play with the numbers. Choose base 8 or base 6 or base 13 instead of base 10 and you'll find entirely new ways that numbers all play together, and entirely new sequences full of interactibility and patterns.
I get where you’re coming from, but unless you’re talking about numerology where people get hung up on symbols instead of values, this isn’t really true at all. In any legitimate branch of mathematics the representations of the numbers change, but the meaning and characteristics of the values represented do not.

Prime numbers are still prime numbers in base 8, 13, or anything else you care to name. Pi still represents the ratio of diameter to circumference in a circle even though it is represented with a different series of symbols: 3.11037552421026430215... in base 8. (The fact that Pi has been overly promoted as the important value when we should have focused on Tau, the ratio of radius to circumference instead, is another subject.)

The number represented by 432 decimal is represented as 650 in octal, but they’re actually the same number with the same fundamental characteristics, so it would be “important” in all the same dubious ways as the product of three 3s and four 2s.
1
Share
Old 24th May 2018
  #250
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Utter psychobabble.
Nope. How are you so thoroughy missing the point.
Old 24th May 2018
  #251
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Gaia View Post
In any legitimate branch of mathematics the representations of the numbers change, but the meaning and characteristics of the values represented do not.
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Gaia View Post
Prime numbers are still prime numbers in base 8, 13, or anything else you care to name. Pi still represents the ratio of diameter to circumference even though it is represented with a different series of symbols: 3.1103... in base 8. (The fact that Pi has been overly promoted as the important value when we should have focused on Tau, the ratio of radius to circumference instead, is another subject.)
Right, but Pi is significant because its diameter to circumference, NOT because its a special number in a sequence.

THAT is the key difference. Pi has to do with what the numbers are being used to represent. Not because 3.14 fell into a mathematical pattern. You can't go from numeric pattern -> represenation and draw conclusions. It doesn't work that way. Only representation -> number.

When you move to base 8, Pi doesn't remain 3.14 because that's some kind of "special cosmic number that is Pi." The number changes because its ENTIRELY about what the numbers represent.
Old 24th May 2018
  #252
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Nope. How are you so thoroughy missing the point.
Which point am I missing?
Old 24th May 2018
  #253
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Which point am I missing?
That number sequences/patterns found within whatever counting system you choose have nothing to do with what the numbers represent.

Pi is diameter to circumference, period. You can use whatever counting system you like to describe this, and each counting system will be filled with patterns if you choose to explore them, but these patterns won't have anything to do with diameter to circumference. They're an unrelated byproduct of counting systems.
Old 24th May 2018
  #254
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
That number sequences found within whatever counting system you choose have nothing to do with what the numbers represent.
Doesn't that depend on whether the number sequences have analogues?

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Pi is diameter to circumference, period. You can use whatever counting system you like to describe this, and each counting system will be filled with patterns if you choose to explore them, but these patterns won't have anything to do with diameter to circumference.
Exactly what I have described in my previous posts. So what point am I missing?
Old 24th May 2018
  #255
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Exactly what I have described in my previous posts. So what point am I missing?
We agree then. My point is that this is then meaningless:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I think that is the 'sacred' bit - the specialness of it's interactability and the mathematical patterns it creates. I think many people see a divine perfection such forms (although personally I think our sense of what is divine has a root in evolutionary adaptation).
You can call the mathematical patterns found in base 10 "divine perfection" if you like, but they're their own independent thing. . . these patterns have nothing to do with what they're being used to represent.

Last edited by newguy1; 24th May 2018 at 06:04 PM..
Old 24th May 2018
  #256
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
We agree then. My point is that this is then meaningless:
Cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You can call the mathematical patterns found in base 10 "divine perfection" if you like, but they're their own independent thing. . . these patterns have nothing to do with what they're being used to represent.
What are they being used to represent?
Old 24th May 2018
  #257
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Cool.

What are they being used to represent?
ANYTHING.

432 cheeseburgers aren't more "in tune with the universe" than 440 cheeseburgers, any more than 432hz aren't more "in tune with the universe" than 440hz.

432mph isn't more "in tune with the universe" than 440mph.

etc etc.

Any fun math that has to do with 432 is its own independent thing.
Old 24th May 2018
  #258
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
ANYTHING.

432 cheeseburgers aren't more "in tune with the universe" than 440 cheeseburgers, any more than 432hz aren't more "in tune with the universe" than 440hz.

432mph isn't more "in tune with the universe" than 440mph.

etc etc.

Any fun math that has to do with 432 is its own independent thing.
Four hundred thirty TWO cheeseburgers, four hundred thirty THREE cheeseburgers . . .

AHH ha ha ha ha ha!
Attached Thumbnails
Why don't we switch to 432Hz tuning?-count.jpeg  
Old 24th May 2018
  #259
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
ANYTHING.

432 cheeseburgers aren't more "in tune with the universe" than 440 cheeseburgers, any more than 432hz aren't more "in tune with the universe" than 440hz.

432mph isn't more "in tune with the universe" than 440mph.

etc etc.

Any fun math that has to do with 432 is its own independent thing.
I don't see anyone here claiming that?
Old 24th May 2018
  #260
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
Four hundred thirty TWO cheeseburgers, four hundred thirty THREE cheeseburgers . . .

AHH ha ha ha ha ha!
You just HAD to add one more, coudn't just stay aligned with the universe. All that cosmic cheeseburger energy lost, just like that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I don't see anyone here claiming that?
If that wasn't your claim then we seem to be in agreement.
Old 24th May 2018
  #261
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
...If that wasn't your claim then we seem to be in agreement.
We've already established that.
Old 24th May 2018
  #262
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Which point am I missing?
to me, this point: 432 is a number that has many interesting properties in its interaction with other numbers. But the designation of a certain pitch as "432" is entirely arbitrary, because the designation is based on the arbitrary period of "one second"

A 432 pitch has a period of 2.315 mS
A 440 pitch has a period of 2.273 mS

But if we had chosen a different arbitrary period to represent "One second" - for example, 982mS instead of 1000mS, the the pitch we call 440 would measure as 432.

Hence the pitch we call 440 would have all of the interesting relations with other numbers, and the pitch we call 432 ( which would now be 424) would have none.

432 is an interesting number, but the designation of a certain pitch as 432 is entirely arbitrary. We could easily call 440, 432, but it wouldn't sound any different. The number is special, not the pitch
1
Share
Old 24th May 2018
  #263
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
to me, this point: 432 is a number that has many interesting properties in its interaction with other numbers. But the designation of a certain pitch as "432" is entirely arbitrary, because the designation is based on the arbitrary period of "one second"

A 432 pitch has a period of 2.315 mS
A 440 pitch has a period of 2.273 mS

But if we had chosen a different arbitrary period to represent "One second" for example, 982mS instead of 1000mS the the pitch we call 440 would measure as 432.

Hence the pitch we call 440 would have all of the interesting relations with other numbers, and the pitch we call 432 ( which would now be 424) would have none.

432 is an interesting number, but the designation of a certain pitch as 432 is entirely arbitrary. We could easily call 440, 432, but it wouldn't sound any different. The number is special, not the pitch
Exactly.

And I brought up the base 10 counting system as another easily observable arbitrary variable (like the length of a second) that the number games are entirely dependent on.

I think Arthur agrees with all this though.
Old 24th May 2018
  #264
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
to me, this point: 432 is a number that has many interesting properties in its interaction with other numbers. But the designation of a certain pitch as "432" is entirely arbitrary, because the designation is based on the arbitrary period of "one second"

A 432 pitch has a period of 2.315 mS
A 440 pitch has a period of 2.273 mS

But if we had chosen a different arbitrary period to represent "One second" - for example, 982mS instead of 1000mS, the the pitch we call 440 would measure as 432.

Hence the pitch we call 440 would have all of the interesting relations with other numbers, and the pitch we call 432 ( which would now be 424) would have none.

432 is an interesting number, but the designation of a certain pitch as 432 is entirely arbitrary. We could easily call 440, 432, but it wouldn't sound any different. The number is special, not the pitch
How did you come to think that was the point I missed? I don't understand?
Old 24th May 2018
  #265
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
How did you come to think that was the point I missed? I don't understand?
This bit is the cause for confusion in where you're sitting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
My angle is that the mere relationship of 432 to other numbers (as an abstract concept) is remarkable and an interesting phenomena in it's own right. I think that is the 'sacred' bit - the specialness of it's interactability and the mathematical patterns it creates. I think many people see a divine perfection such forms (although personally I think our sense of what is divine has a root in evolutionary adaptation).
This is fine. But has nothing to do with anything other than a representation-less 432 falling within some base 10 numbers games. Which you note with "as an abstract concept."

And then this bit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post

If mathematics is a language then the lexicon and syntax can include components that correspond to non-abstract phenomena in the physical world: for example, Sir Martin Rees dicusses 'the power of six' in cosmology, and I can attribute or superimpose any number of mathematical configurations onto the phenomenal world I experience.

432 is an interesting number (because of it's relationship to other numbers whether or not a realworld analogue exists or not): to mathematicians, to poets, and which kind of artist would not want to incorporate a little interest into their production?
Where you seem to say that the numbers do indeed correspond to non-abstract phenomena in some significant way.

You've in a very vague area though, the latter quote could mean artists do it just for the fun of it, rather than for some "cosmic" reason. Hard to tell what you're saying.

The whole discussion has been against "cosmic" reasoning here though. . of course if you (the general "you" not YOU) want to record in 432 because you're into mathematical patterns and its fun to you, then do it, but don't act like that's affecting listeners more at some universal level, its not affecting anything anymore than 432 cheeseburgers do.
Old 24th May 2018
  #266
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Exactly.

And I brought up the base 10 counting system as another easily observable arbitrary variable (like the length of a second) that the number games are entirely dependent on.

I think Arthur agrees with all this though.
I do and I'm a bit confused as to why so many people keep repeating it. It's inimic and interfering/trolling with a discussion on an interesting topic.
Old 24th May 2018
  #267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

Well I'm not sure what a 'sacred number believer' is exactly but obviously some people find particular numbers to have significance for a variety of reasons.

The property of a sacred number (in my own definition/opinion) is one that corresponds with or interacts with other numbers or symbols. In a Saussurean sense, the number/symbol has two planes like a piece of paper: on one side the symbol on the other it's meaning as projected or interpreted by the viewer.
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I'm no semiotician, but as I understand it, Saussure's primary contribution was his model of linguistic signs which proposes an arbitrary, bilateral relation between a signified and signifier. Key word: arbitrary. And, therefore, potentially dynamic/mutable.
I don't understand where you're going with this?
You don't?

According to Saussure, in verbal language the relation between the sign and the concept being signified is arbitrary.

So, for instance, to try to extend that to the 'language' of math, in an informal example: to me the number 432 is simply a signifier of quantity. The signified is a numeric value as I regard that signifier.

To someone else, however, 432 may have greater primacy in their world view as some sort of 'sacred number' with special, mystical meaning to them.

This, in a limited sense, seems to demonstrate the arbitrary -- and therefore mutable -- nature of the relationship between signifier and signified.

But, again, I'm not a semiotician, I'm merely trying to make my own sense of your comment above.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

If mathematics is a language then the lexicon and syntax can include components that correspond to non-abstract phenomena in the physical world: for example, Sir Martin Rees dicusses 'the power of six' in cosmology, and I can attribute or superimpose any number of mathematical configurations onto the phenomenal world I experience.

432 is an interesting number (because of it's relationship to other numbers whether or not a realworld analogue exists or not): to mathematicians, to poets, and which kind of artist would not want to incorporate a little interest into their production?
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Mathematics is a language that describes numbers and their relationships with other numbers. It is abstract. It can be used to describe and predict physical world phenomena. It should not be confused with them....
I agree. Who is confusing them?
Not me.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees – review

Rees's observations do look fascinating, but as I understand it, these 'six numbers' are more properly six values, not numbers, and that these values are often best represented as formulas. For instance, from the article linked above:


Almost exactly 1036. Not exactly. Not some nice, clean, 'sacred' number. And N's value in base ten is a number involving 36 zeroes. Others of those values are similarly quite large or relatively infinitesimal.

Here's more on Rees' six values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-t...verse#Examples


EDIT: And as newguy1 points out below, there's nothing about 'the power of six' in Rees's writing that I have found -- aside from the fact that he has suggested that there are six critical value ranges outside of which, a universe like ours would be impossible. Others disagree with his ideas.
You're missing the point (as is newguy). Rees is using numbers to symbolise something: on one side of the Saussurean paper is the Universe and on the other Rees's numbers.
I certainly don't get that from my limited reading on Rees on the issue. I certainly don't see anything of the sort in the Guardian article.

Rather, it looks to me that Rees is saying that the universe as we know it largely depends on six relatively narrow value ranges. Values outside those narrow ranges would consequentially result in a very different or somehow non-functional universe, as I take it.

I have not read anything suggesting that those six value ranges in some way signify the universe in Rees' conceptualization. I don't see ANYTHING about 'the power of six' in the Guardian write-up or in discussions of his ideas I've found.

But I may well have missed something. Maybe you can elaborate or point us to pertinent passages from his writing?
Old 24th May 2018
  #268
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I do and I'm a bit confused as to why so many people keep repeating it. It's inimic and interfering/trolling with a discussion on an interesting topic.


I was responding to your statement that:

432 is an interesting number (because of it's relationship to other numbers whether or not a realworld analogue exists or not): to mathematicians, to poets, and which kind of artist would not want to incorporate a little interest into their production?


By pointing out the the designation of a certain pitch as 432 was entirely arbitrary


Perhaps my confusion is because the debate appears to have shifted from "the special properties of the pitch series associated with the number 432" to "the special nature of the number 432 itself?" Quite different debates.
Old 24th May 2018
  #269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I do and I'm a bit confused as to why so many people keep repeating it. It's inimic and interfering/trolling with a discussion on an interesting topic.
It's not trolling.

You have made a number of either misunderstood and/or provocative statements -- as manifest by the number of people questioning those statements.

People are trying to make sense of them through rational discourse.
Old 24th May 2018
  #270
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
This bit is the cause for confusion in where you're sitting:
How can you answer for Norfolk Martin? How do you know what he will be thinking? I'd prefer an answer directly from him rather than a bifurcation of the conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
This is fine. But has nothing to do with anything other than a representation-less 432 falling within some base 10 numbers games. Which you note with "as an abstract concept."
Nothing wrong with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
And then this bit:
Where you seem to say that the numbers do indeed correspond to non-abstract phenomena in some significant way.
Well if I have some fruits in front of me and I decide to count them then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You've in a very vague area though, the latter quote could mean artists do it just for the fun of it, rather than for some "cosmic" reason. Hard to tell what you're saying.
Art (as a cultural tool or expression) and pattern recognition (as an evolutionary advantageous capability) co-exist with no distinct boundary. As an artist it's OK to reify an abstract concept/pattern and bring it to life in a way that science forbids.
This forum isn't 'the Science Forum' and personally I'm interested in discussing the cultural aspects of 432 independently of scientific hegemony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
...The whole discussion has been against "cosmic" reasoning here though. . of course if you (the general "you" not YOU) want to record in 432 because you're into mathematical patterns and its fun to you, then do it, but don't act like that's affecting listeners more at some universal level, its not affecting anything anymore than 432 cheeseburgers do.
Different reference tuning is different tuning. There may be different physiological or mental outcomes; I don't know. I work a lot in 432 on request and I like it but I haven't noticed anything special over 440. Maybe the old church organ was 432.

I think if there's any remarkable phenomena in '432' it's in the transposition (into tuning or timing) of the patterns associated with it rather than in one specific representation of the number i.e. Hz.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump