On 14 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Kim Jones wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 1:12 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Information must be made evident through sensory participation, or
it is nothing at all.
Craig, you have just explained to me the basis of my discalculia. No
one else has ever managed to do that in all my 57 years.
Music was always instantaneously understandable to me because of the
way it gained my deep sensory participation whereas mathematics was
always just a bunch of squiggles on paper that to me were as dry as
dust and as terrifyingly remote as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Math evoked
no sensuous universe of qualia - for me. I have often felt that for
those with a high degree of numeracy, that the hieroglyphs of
mathematics evoke the same sensory participation as music does for
me. Bruno, for example composes and reads mathematical sentences
with the same ease as I have in listening to even quite complex
music and writing it down from ear in standard music notation.
Not really. To be honest, it is work, a lot of work. And then I have
just plugged in works made by people certainly more gifted than me.
For most mathematicians, it is a question of patient learning. There
are virtuoses,but most mathematicians can be quickly out, when going
out of their expertise.
Gauss said that mathematics is simple, because everyone can
understand, and that's true, but to solve a known problem, you need
complex circumstantial event. Now, we know we are confronted to a
ladder of very complex problems, and even genius like Ramanujan
couldn't solve the Riemann hypothesis, which is just pi_1, the
negation of a sigma_1 proposition.
Doing math is simple, like swimming is simple, but then that does not
mean that crossing the ocean is simple, and in that sense, math is
infinitely difficult.
I sometimes refer to myself as a "mathemusician".
:)
There are many relations between math and music. Too much, so thats a
whole topic. I point often on the relation I do know, which is that
numbers, written in a base, already code melodies (cf musinum).
Then there is the pythagorean link between numbers and frequencies,
which relates wave theory and number theory. By that aspect QM seems
more pythagorean than computationalism, for which the universal number
might look like a dissonance.
For each part of of math, there might be a corresponding music. Both
math and music are large, there is something for any taste and
sensibility, I think.
Bruno
I'll now watch the clip you posted!
Kim
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone: 02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark
Twain
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
