AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has
predictive power. So do we. You don't.

I don't contradict the predictive abilities of your theory. I think you
understand very well how the ear/brain behaves---under one set of
conditions. Despite the attempt by objectivists to paint our
suggestions as "faith", "blind belief," and "extraordinary claims,"
they amount to one thing: the rather ordinary suggestion that if you
investigate the ear/brain under conditions that have never before been
investigated, you might learn something new.

We can always learn something new. But neither you nor anyone else has
demonstrated that there are any such conditions under which our
ear/brain model fails to explain what it now claims to explain.

Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one
could explain with conventional physics. I get that.

However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one
investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a
particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave
will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a
particle.

I find the above statement to be quite astonishing. Clearly we could not
explain certain phemonema, such as the photoelectric effect, if we were
to investigate light as a wave. It was this "troublesome" observation
that led to the theory that light has to be considered as particles
also. Similarly, treating light as particles also leads to very
troublesome observations that cannot be explained by the particle theory
alone. This is freshman physics stuff, no?

Point 1, it seems like you haven't come to terms with the paradox of
quantum mechanics.

It seems like you still don't understand that if you only treat light as
a wave, there will be troublesome observations that cannot be explained.
The theory of light being a wave only cannot explain certain phenomena,
and the wave/particle duality was then advanced as a theory to explain
these phenomena.

Now can you share with us what troublesome audio phenomena cannot be
explained by our present theories?

Point 2, Yes, observing light in many different
contexts led to some difficult observations that required the wider
theory to explain.
However, point 2A, the brain is *much* more
complicated than a photon; point 2B, it has *not* been investigated in
a wide set of contexts. It has been investigated in *one* context for
all practical purposes.

As we had explained to you many times, and obviously unsuccessully, how
the brain interprets the sound is a complex issue, but deciding whether
two sounds are different based on hearing alone is a simple one. As
another poster once said, you are simply wandering in the dark hallways
of your mind, and you want someone to follow you.