Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Now, all religions try to order human affairs towards a goodly end.
Okay, except Mohammedanism, which orders its affairs to the conquest of
the world, but still to the greater glory of Allah, so that their
terrorism is only despicable because outside the councils of
fundamental Islamism, philosophically and however we fail in practice,
we hold the presumption of peace as a near-ultimate good, in fact a
near-universal axiom. And, okay, and except for Satanists, who worship
chaos. But for the majority of religious people in the world, and in
the founding of all the great religions (with the two exceptions
noted), order out of chaos was the prime imperative. The same applies
to the secular religionists such as democrats, marxists, etc: their
prime imperative is not to do no harm (Star Trek isn't reality,
Virginia) but to impose order on some desirable sub-universe.

Now posit a Lord of Creation who puffed out a universe, or many
universes. I am not presumptuous enough to judge him, but the Laws of
Thermodynamics put his followers in lose-lose-lose situation.

If he created them to create order in the sub-universe he created for
them, increasing entropy will eventually destroy the garden of Eden he
created for them ("this best of possible worlds" -- Voltaire, Candide).
They lose.

If he did not create them to be his servants in ordering the
sub-universe he gave them, they are rats in a laboratory forgotten by
its maker, treading the mill to entropy because that is all they know.
They lose.

If he is indifferent to them and created them as an unnoticed accident,
a byproduct of play or thought or work (we Calvinists believe God keeps
office hours from 9-5 four days a week), the more fool they to believe
he ever noticed them. They lose.

This is all intelligent design, and the accidents thereof, for even God
cannot be perfect. The question is, why should an Intelligent Designer
choose Man, in an obscure corner of an obscure galaxie in an obscure
corner of the Universe, to be his central work or art -- and to be his
PR spindoctor! It dinna scan, friends. It's pure hubris.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) Of course my topic is on-topic, Virginia. Entropy is a measure of
the random errors (noise) in the transmission of signals. See? Audio!

Andre Jute wrote:
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable....

...etc...etc...


Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"

I'd have thought the subjective effects of tubes would keep enough
mystery in your life without metaphysics, Andre. Arnie after all has
discovered God but finds tubes totally baffling. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com
Andre Jute wrote:
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time
on the unknowable....

..etc...etc...


Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"

I'd have thought the subjective effects of tubes would
keep enough mystery in your life without metaphysics,
Andre. Arnie after all has discovered God but finds tubes
totally baffling. :-)

Actually, I've spent more time listening to, and working with tubes than
most.

Until 1962 or so, tubes were about all we had for hi-fi. Getting rid of them
was like getting rid of the common cold.

Andre Jute a écrit :
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Now, all religions try to order human affairs towards a goodly end.
Okay, except Mohammedanism, which orders its affairs to the conquest of
the world, but still to the greater glory of Allah, so that their
terrorism is only despicable because outside the councils of
fundamental Islamism, philosophically and however we fail in practice,
we hold the presumption of peace as a near-ultimate good, in fact a
near-universal axiom. And, okay, and except for Satanists, who worship
chaos. But for the majority of religious people in the world, and in
the founding of all the great religions (with the two exceptions
noted), order out of chaos was the prime imperative. The same applies
to the secular religionists such as democrats, marxists, etc: their
prime imperative is not to do no harm (Star Trek isn't reality,
Virginia) but to impose order on some desirable sub-universe.

Now posit a Lord of Creation who puffed out a universe, or many
universes. I am not presumptuous enough to judge him, but the Laws of
Thermodynamics put his followers in lose-lose-lose situation.

If he created them to create order in the sub-universe he created for
them, increasing entropy will eventually destroy the garden of Eden he
created for them ("this best of possible worlds" -- Voltaire, Candide).
They lose.

If he did not create them to be his servants in ordering the
sub-universe he gave them, they are rats in a laboratory forgotten by
its maker, treading the mill to entropy because that is all they know.
They lose.

If he is indifferent to them and created them as an unnoticed accident,
a byproduct of play or thought or work (we Calvinists believe God keeps
office hours from 9-5 four days a week), the more fool they to believe
he ever noticed them. They lose.

So what, Dédé ? This only lead us to the limit of your "imagery".

Are you pretending that *our* universe finishs at the horizon of your
imagination ?



This is all intelligent design, and the accidents thereof, for even God
cannot be perfect. The question is, why should an Intelligent Designer
choose Man, in an obscure corner of an obscure galaxie in an obscure
corner of the Universe, to be his central work or art -- and to be his
PR spindoctor! It dinna scan, friends. It's pure hubris.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) Of course my topic is on-topic, Virginia. Entropy is a measure of
the random errors (noise) in the transmission of signals. See? Audio!



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith, which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought. You are no
doubt familiar with the idea of disjoint universes of discourse. Sometimes,
this is not noticed, leading to discussions that have nowhere to go but
where they shouldn't.

One doesn't have to be a materialist to conclude for himself that these two
universes are unconnected. However, there is one person in physics who is
known and respected for his attempt to include the question of consciousness
within the physical framework, Henry Stapp, who works at Lawrence Livermore.
Stapp asserts that the quantum mechanical "observer" is more than a
mathematical curiousity, but rather, creates the physical universe. But
since the Universe existed for a long time before it was populated by
self-aware creatures, we cannot assume that qm consciousness is higher
consciousness.

The other day, I was provoked by the following thought. What if our Universe
is perched on a logical singularity? On one side of the singularity, Occam's
Razor sifts away unnecessary complexity. On the other side of the
singularity, explanations tend to grow more complex, rendering Occam's Razor
useless. This is consonant with the suspicion of some that the attempt of
Physics to find an ultimate, simplifying theory of everything pursues a
nonexistent goal.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy.
You will find it in the laws of thermodynamics which
control the formation and dissolution of the universe.
Entropy is disorder, randomness easily mistaken for
amorphous chaos.

Entropy was not part of the cration of the Universe according to
Christianity.

Now, all religions try to order human affairs towards a
goodly end.

Not in the short term. Perhaps Jute is unfamiliar with the words
"Tribulation", "Armageddon", etc.?

Now posit a Lord of Creation who puffed out a universe,
or many universes. I am not presumptuous enough to judge
him, but the Laws of Thermodynamics put his followers in
lose-lose-lose situation.

According to Christianity the Laws of nature were, different in the
origional design.

If he created them to create order in the sub-universe he
created for them, increasing entropy will eventually
destroy the garden of Eden he created for them ("this
best of possible worlds" -- Voltaire, Candide). They lose.

A world with entropy is, according to Christianity a temporary state.

If he did not create them to be his servants in ordering
the sub-universe he gave them, they are rats in a
laboratory forgotten by its maker, treading the mill to
entropy because that is all they know. They lose.

Jute's ignorance of Christian teachings probably explains a lot of things.

Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith, which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

Jute's ignorance snip probably explains a lot of things.

Uhuh.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

Robert Morein said:

It's very popular to bash people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

Krooger loves turds and Mikey loves Krooger. There's LOt"S wrong with
those tastes.

paul packer wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable....

..etc...etc...


Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"

I'd have thought the subjective effects of tubes would keep enough
mystery in your life without metaphysics, Andre. Arnie after all has
discovered God but finds tubes totally baffling. :-)

Actually, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger has since admitted:

Actually, I've spent more time listening to, and working with tubes than
most.

And clearly felt no glee in the music.

Until 1962 or so, tubes were about all we had for hi-fi. Getting rid of them
was like getting rid of the common cold.

Considering the quality of the transistors with which Arny "I spoke in
ignorance" Krueger replaced tubes in 1962, or 1972 for that matter,
that tells us why he clearly felt no glee in the music then or ever
since.

This exchange tells us more about Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger's
ears, and his general level of culture, than it does about the tubes v.
transistors debate.

I have boxes and boxes of sorted trays of heritage discrete transistors
given to me to start my junkbox when I came into DIY electronics about
1990. Every now and again I build a little amp with them to remind me
where the taste of Krueger, Pinkothicko and Poopie Stevenson was
formed. It sure as hell wasn't in an opera house or concert hall.

Transistors are God's entropic punishment of the uncultured.

Andre Jute
Opamp man

Lionel wrote:
Andre Jute a écrit :
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Now, all religions try to order human affairs towards a goodly end.
Okay, except Mohammedanism, which orders its affairs to the conquest of
the world, but still to the greater glory of Allah, so that their
terrorism is only despicable because outside the councils of
fundamental Islamism, philosophically and however we fail in practice,
we hold the presumption of peace as a near-ultimate good, in fact a
near-universal axiom. And, okay, and except for Satanists, who worship
chaos. But for the majority of religious people in the world, and in
the founding of all the great religions (with the two exceptions
noted), order out of chaos was the prime imperative. The same applies
to the secular religionists such as democrats, marxists, etc: their
prime imperative is not to do no harm (Star Trek isn't reality,
Virginia) but to impose order on some desirable sub-universe.

Now posit a Lord of Creation who puffed out a universe, or many
universes. I am not presumptuous enough to judge him, but the Laws of
Thermodynamics put his followers in lose-lose-lose situation.

If he created them to create order in the sub-universe he created for
them, increasing entropy will eventually destroy the garden of Eden he
created for them ("this best of possible worlds" -- Voltaire, Candide).
They lose.

If he did not create them to be his servants in ordering the
sub-universe he gave them, they are rats in a laboratory forgotten by
its maker, treading the mill to entropy because that is all they know.
They lose.

If he is indifferent to them and created them as an unnoticed accident,
a byproduct of play or thought or work (we Calvinists believe God keeps
office hours from 9-5 four days a week), the more fool they to believe
he ever noticed them. They lose.

So what, Dédé ? This only lead us to the limit of your "imagery".

Are you pretending that *our* universe finishs at the horizon of your
imagination ?



This is all intelligent design, and the accidents thereof, for even God
cannot be perfect. The question is, why should an Intelligent Designer
choose Man, in an obscure corner of an obscure galaxie in an obscure
corner of the Universe, to be his central work or art -- and to be his
PR spindoctor! It dinna scan, friends. It's pure hubris.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) Of course my topic is on-topic, Virginia. Entropy is a measure of
the random errors (noise) in the transmission of signals. See? Audio!


Actually, Lionella, in my "imagery" as you have it, outlined all the
possibilities (related to current religions) for an Intelligent
Director to have created man: servant of order by design, servant of
order by miscomprehension on the part of man, indifferent by-product of
another activity shorthanded as accident. Any of the many other
possibilities you may think of (I can think of hundreds) will not be
related to the current major religions which are the context of this
discussion clearly delineated in my introduction.

And no, I am not suggesting that the event horizon and my "imagination"
coincide. My imagination is boundless.

I am suggesting that the event horizon and *your* imagination coincide
if you cannot see that the religion of order out of chaos is a valuable
survival tool for man, regardless of how it is explained to primitives
like Krueger by voices in the stone. You should read "A History of the
Jews" by Paul Johnson, a practising, faithful Catholic with an
implicit, unshakable belief in God. He makes my point again and again
and again, most pointedly where he ascribes the survival of the Jews to
principled social organization.

In that context, the rather unoriginal statement that the middle
classes are the foundation of a decent society is, wait for it, a
religious text. That is why the devil's spawn hate the middle classes;
Lenin thought the bourgeoisie the major obstacle to his vision of world
chaos from which he would grasp control by murder.

HTH.

Andre Jute

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

Andre Jute wrote:

I have boxes and boxes of sorted trays of heritage discrete transistors
given to me to start my junkbox when I came into DIY electronics about
1990. Every now and again I build a little amp with them to remind me
where the taste of Krueger, Pinkothicko and Poopie Stevenson was
formed. It sure as hell wasn't in an opera house or concert hall.

If you insist on using ancient junk what do you expect ?

I doubt you'd have the faintest idea how to design a circuit using semiconductors
that uses them to advantage.

Graham

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:30:42 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

This is consonant with the suspicion of some that the attempt of
Physics to find an ultimate, simplifying theory of everything pursues a
nonexistent goal.

You mean Einstein beavered away all those nights for nothing when he
could have been listening to radio serials? That's horrible.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,

Of course it is.

which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Rubbish. Religion sits perfectly well with science to men of the
slightest sophistication. All that is required is a supple mind to
reject the literalism of fundamentalists (1).

You are no
doubt familiar with the idea of disjoint universes of discourse. Sometimes,
this is not noticed, leading to discussions that have nowhere to go but
where they shouldn't.

My reply is above.

One doesn't have to be a materialist to conclude for himself that these two
universes are unconnected.

See the last pars of my reply to Lionel. I see no reason why order (the
converse of entropy) should not be discussed as a religious context. (I
might observe that moral relativity has crept into everyday life, as
can be observed on this newsgroup every day, and is justified by the
entirely unrelated relativity in physics. But only in that trivial
sense is your remark provable.)

However, there is one person in physics who is
known and respected for his attempt to include the question of consciousness
within the physical framework, Henry Stapp, who works at Lawrence Livermore.
Stapp asserts that the quantum mechanical "observer" is more than a
mathematical curiousity, but rather, creates the physical universe. But
since the Universe existed for a long time before it was populated by
self-aware creatures, we cannot assume that qm consciousness is higher
consciousness.

Precisely! Consider the greatest product of mass awareness in the
world, the Internet. Control the computers and you control their
biological appendages. The second coming is nigh! (2)

The other day, I was provoked by the following thought. What if our Universe
is perched on a logical singularity? On one side of the singularity, Occam's
Razor sifts away unnecessary complexity. On the other side of the
singularity, explanations tend to grow more complex, rendering Occam's Razor
useless. This is consonant with the suspicion of some that the attempt of
Physics to find an ultimate, simplifying theory of everything pursues a
nonexistent goal.

Sure thing. While, philosophically and scientifally, your Occam's Razor
universe may exist (in fact, in a quantum world *must* exist and in it
Einstein has already discovered the GUT), it is observably not the
universe we inhabit. Positing parallel but different universes is, even
linguistically, already an admission of that possibility and
likelihood. Who, more mundanely, has not sat in front of his television
set and said to his wife, every time some physicist glibly tells us
they have discovered the smallest possible component of matter, "That
fellow lives in wishfulfillmentland. In ten years his students will be
telling us they have discovered something six magnitudes smaller--and
that science will not go smaller."

Andre Jute

(1) Having kept a chimpanzee as a pet for several years, I have no
problem with being descended from apes. It was often remarked that my
chimp, MiniAndre, at parties would pinch only the prettiest girls.
That's proof already that Darwin was right.

(2) "The second coming is nigh!" I am the prophet of its
Consciousness. Fall down and worship me or suffer the consequences!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


It's very
popular to bash people on account of their personal
taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

Thus Morein condemns almost 100% of his posts to RAO.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste." Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard. Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference to
the experience of actual attendance.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

Yeah. See my remarks in another post about moral relativity and those
with supple minds. In this thread we can already see who can think and
who can only abuse their gift of breathing oxygen. --AJ

Pooh Bear wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth )

I must have missed that. All I saw from you, Poopie, was personal
abuse. When you were invited to make a specific technical contribution,
you ran away.

that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

You don't listen. It is widely know that I prefer the sound of PP
trioded EL34 over SET; it is widely known that I am an admirer of the
pure pleasing livability of Quad transistor amplifiers. My point is
that SET has right to exist, and a right to please those who prefer it,
despite the jeers and sneers of people with a vested interest in a
discredited paradigm who offer nothing better.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Have it your own way. You're the only one who thinks your opinion
matters. You might observe that when I hear the same opinion from
someone I respect, I treat it with respect and discuss it with respect.
Your mind is too rigid to be worth the effort.

It might be less hurtful for you to stay out threads beyond your mental
capabilities, Poopie. We promise to take as read your constant spite
towards better men, evidenced by your constant nasty invasions of
threads where you have no business.

Graham

Unsigned out of contempt

Andre Jute said:

Transistors are God's entropic punishment of the uncultured.

You should throw in a salute to Henry "Master Race" Ford.

Poopie said:

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

You probably have no idea how ridiculous you sound, prating about
"accuracy" when the actual subject is music.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.


Graham

George M. Middius wrote:
Poopie said:

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

You probably have no idea how ridiculous you sound, prating about
"accuracy" when the actual subject is music.

Graham Poopie Stevenson is like the ugly, useless boy at school always
huffing and puffing to catch up with the crowd, muttering curses under
his breath.

Fifty years later he still hasn't caught up. His curses are ever
weaker, too.

Andre Jute

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that it
stems from his religious beliefs?

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,

Of course it is.

which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Rubbish. Religion sits perfectly well with science to men of the
slightest sophistication. All that is required is a supple mind to
reject the literalism of fundamentalists (1).

Perhaps it depends upon what we call religion. My religion is simply the
wonder that I live in an inescapable world of infinite illusion, and that I
am one of the few creatures with the capacity and interest to realize that.

For most people, however, religion is a collection of dogma provided and
accepted to answer troubling ontological questions at levels tailored to the
mental capacity of the recipient. Thus, we have the rather sophisticated
Eastern myths, which have in many ways inspired modern physics, and the
primitive Western myths, which are hostile to science. Prevelant in the
Western tradition is anthropomorphic deification. A fixation on Creation
disguises the conservation laws of physics, and obliterates the very real
question of whether there is actually a point in the timeline when these
laws were violated.

In my opinion, Western religion is a vehicle for moral education and
political control, which is not necessarily bad. However, for a single
individual to embrace both science and Western religion, a mind must be
divided into spheres of thought. Some individuals, particularly those who
work in areas other than physics, do this well.

But I get the impression you are a Calvinist, and that the Calvinist
doctrine overlays your melding of scientific philosophy. It is your choice,
but I do not find it an attractive one. It is the first cut of my razor.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that it
stems from his religious beliefs?

Ouch. We're personalizing a light-hearted speculative discussion. My
religion is my own business and as a professional intellectual I am by
definition an infinite sceptic and thus cannot be a spiritual person,
nor, for that matter, a religious person in any sense a fundamentalist
will recognize. The ecstasy of music for practical purposes stands
outside either crude religion or spirituality or, more precisely,
crosses so many of their divisive boundaries that the very universality
of musical ecstasy makes the application of such appellations to music
instantly suspect.

Nor have I ever claimed my audio "system is, or nearly, the best of all
possible systems." I merely say it suits my taste, and that I back my
educated taste against the unattractive control freakery of tenth-rate
"engineers". (In fact I have written extensively on the stupidity of
confusing *high* fidelity, as a search for perfection, with *fidelity*
as an unqualified achievement measured by THD and IMD.) Recently, and
in the particular context of the feeding frenzy of railroad minds on
RAO and RAT decrying one audio choice, I have added what is observable
to anyone, that none of them have audio systems of the depth, width and
quality of mine; but that is merely a matter of money, not of
principle. The implication is only that I have the instant opportunity
to test systems and paradigms against each other (for instance
DHT-horns against solid state-panels) to reinforce my opinion based on
taste, placebo test or measurement, not that I care whether my system
is objectively "better" than theirs; my belief in the primacy of
culture as a tool for evaluation excludes such crude measures.

Now watch the crude railroad minds foam at the mouth in their
incomprehension. (Like you, I am not so much interested in what they
think--that is depressingly predictable--but what they think with.)

Andre Jute

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that it
stems from his religious beliefs?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,

Of course it is.

which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Rubbish. Religion sits perfectly well with science to men of the
slightest sophistication. All that is required is a supple mind to
reject the literalism of fundamentalists (1).

Perhaps it depends upon what we call religion. My religion is simply the
wonder that I live in an inescapable world of infinite illusion, and that I
am one of the few creatures with the capacity and interest to realize that.

I'll go along with that any day of the week. It is a particularly fine
statement of the way many people feel, including me.

For most people, however, religion is a collection of dogma provided and
accepted to answer troubling ontological questions at levels tailored to the
mental capacity of the recipient.

Okay, they're frightened of the dark beyond and need a story at bedtime
to soothe them. But why do we have to discuss this at Krueger or
Poopie's level merely because they are incapable of discussing it at
ours? I hate it when Americans without resistance permit the
fundamentalists to claim they have *right* to set the agenda. That is
no different from the position in Teheran, and will end up in the same
sort of theocracy. (Note that in another thread Krueger has explicitly
made the same point, so he is either not as thick as we observe from
his audio antics or some sense is seeping into the fundamentalia of
even his kind of "Christian".)

Thus, we have the rather sophisticated
Eastern myths, which have in many ways inspired modern physics, and the
primitive Western myths, which are hostile to science. Prevelant in the
Western tradition is anthropomorphic deification. A fixation on Creation
disguises the conservation laws of physics, and obliterates the very real
question of whether there is actually a point in the timeline when these
laws were violated.

The present discussion is about whether discontinuity was willed or due
to some as yet to be discovered law of physics.

In my opinion, Western religion is a vehicle for moral education and
political control, which is not necessarily bad. However, for a single
individual to embrace both science and Western religion, a mind must be
divided into spheres of thought. Some individuals, particularly those who
work in areas other than physics, do this well.

I don't see any problem for a student of history. Even the Jews,
possessors of the oldest monotheism, implicitly admit that God was not
always there, or at the very least not fully fomed; this is the
implication of the revelation to Moses of The Law, of the ordering.
Thus the ordering religions can easily be viewed as social constructs
without any friction with the laws of physics. No dichotomy of mind, or
contortions with Darwin, are required.

But I get the impression you are a Calvinist, and that the Calvinist
doctrine overlays your melding of scientific philosophy. It is your choice,
but I do not find it an attractive one. It is the first cut of my razor.

I bleed. Again, as a professional intellectual, I am an infinite
sceptic. It would be foolish to believe that religious dogma influences
anything I do or say in real life. Of course, being born a Calvinist
gives one a certain confident latitude for speculative thought. The
communists, even in their dullest years, discovered that the
intelligent doubters were, when push came to shove, the fiercest
defenders of the faith!

Just for the record, because I think you and I are having a
misunderstanding, I deny categorically that I have ever tried to "meld"
scientific philosophy with anything antithetical to it. That, if you
meant it, would be the unkindest cut of all to a rationalist.

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do
see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that
it
stems from his religious beliefs?

Ouch. We're personalizing a light-hearted speculative discussion. My
religion is my own business and as a professional intellectual I am by
definition an infinite sceptic and thus cannot be a spiritual person,
nor, for that matter, a religious person in any sense a fundamentalist
will recognize. The ecstasy of music for practical purposes stands
outside either crude religion or spirituality or, more precisely,
crosses so many of their divisive boundaries that the very universality
of musical ecstasy makes the application of such appellations to music
instantly suspect.

Perhaps I misunderstood. You started with "Now posit a Lord of Creation who
puffed out a universe, or many
universes...", which I took to be a statement of your belief. Perhaps it was
just a hypothesis for discussion, as you did say, "posit", rather than, "I
believe." This particular hypothesis is not one which I have an answer, but
it begs one of the most important, if unanswerable questions.


Nor have I ever claimed my audio "system is, or nearly, the best of all
possible systems." I merely say it suits my taste, and that I back my
educated taste against the unattractive control freakery of tenth-rate
"engineers". (In fact I have written extensively on the stupidity of
confusing *high* fidelity, as a search for perfection, with *fidelity*
as an unqualified achievement measured by THD and IMD.) Recently, and
in the particular context of the feeding frenzy of railroad minds on
RAO and RAT decrying one audio choice, I have added what is observable
to anyone, that none of them have audio systems of the depth, width and
quality of mine; but that is merely a matter of money, not of
principle.

WRT the last sentence, there is a question in my mind about that. If you are
referring to specific individuals, and you feel that by their remarks, or
other means, you know, you have a good chance of correctness. But there are
many happy accidents of synergy, some of which result in extraordinary sound
in very ordinary places, or for very ordinary people.

The implication is only that I have the instant opportunity
to test systems and paradigms against each other (for instance
DHT-horns against solid state-panels) to reinforce my opinion based on
taste, placebo test or measurement, not that I care whether my system
is objectively "better" than theirs; my belief in the primacy of
culture as a tool for evaluation excludes such crude measures.

Now watch the crude railroad minds foam at the mouth in their
incomprehension. (Like you, I am not so much interested in what they
think--that is depressingly predictable--but what they think with.)

Andre Jute

I get you.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific
thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that
can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God
squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute,
and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different
from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in
transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar
to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do
see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that
it
stems from his religious beliefs?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


It's very
popular to bash people on account of their personal
taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

Thus Morein condemns almost 100% of his posts to RAO.
Never about their taste, Arny. Only about assertions of fact.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific
thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that
can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God
squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute,
and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different
from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in
transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar
to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do
see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that
it
stems from his religious beliefs?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

It was simply a light-hearted comparison as to how faith/belief can result in
'unscientific' conclusions.

As in that religion would deny Darwin, so the SET believers would deny the sonic
accuracy of modern ( and even some not so modern ) amplifier designs with hugely
superior technical specs.

' Love is blind ' etc......

Graham

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will
find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,

Of course it is.

which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Rubbish. Religion sits perfectly well with science to men of the
slightest sophistication. All that is required is a supple mind to
reject the literalism of fundamentalists (1).

Perhaps it depends upon what we call religion. My religion is simply the
wonder that I live in an inescapable world of infinite illusion, and that
I
am one of the few creatures with the capacity and interest to realize
that.

I'll go along with that any day of the week. It is a particularly fine
statement of the way

[snip]
Just for the record, because I think you and I are having a
misunderstanding, I deny categorically that I have ever tried to "meld"
scientific philosophy with anything antithetical to it. That, if you
meant it, would be the unkindest cut of all to a rationalist.

Andre Jute

All fine and good, but the initial post still leaves me with a question. Was
"What God wants..." merely a rhetorical flourish? I am allergic to this,
for many people, the literal belief that the Universe is guided in a
teleological fashion. Historically, it has fueled much religious insanity;
"God wants you to be fruitful and multiply..." followed by calculations of
the "carrying capacity" of the planet, which, acccording to one religious
authority to be some 500 or 600 billion "souls."

So, "What God wants..." was bound to set me off.

The center of my speculation is that all logically consistent universes
exist. This allows me to vacate the concepts of "existent" and
"nonexistent". Razor redux.

Poopie Stevenson aka Pooh Bear wrote:
Poopie:
The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham
.........

Morein:
But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that it
stems from his religious beliefs?

Poopie
I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

You're the one who missed another chance to shine, Poopie. In the
context it is quite natural for Robert to believe that you are trying
to make a serious contribution to the thread. He paid you the
compliment of believing, or at least implying, that you understood what
was going on. You have just demonstrated that his faith was misplaced,
that you are, as usual, just flaming away in total ignorance of what
the discussion is about. You're so thick, Poopie, you'd be an
embarrasment even on alt.****eaters.

Unsigned out of contempt

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:30:42 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

This is consonant with the suspicion of some that the attempt of
Physics to find an ultimate, simplifying theory of everything pursues a
nonexistent goal.

You mean Einstein beavered away all those nights for nothing when he
could have been listening to radio serials? That's horrible.

Gee, Packer, you're a slacker. You can't even say Einstein watched
television so that we could have a nice little flame war about what an
anachronism you are.

No bloody sensitivity!

Andre Jute

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with
religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific
thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to
bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer
that
can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God
squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between
the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is
a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for
Jute,
and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making
judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly
different
from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of
occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in
transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement
similar
to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do
see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is,
or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure
that
it
stems from his religious beliefs?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

It was simply a light-hearted comparison as to how faith/belief can result
in
'unscientific' conclusions.

As in that religion would deny Darwin, so the SET believers would deny the
sonic
accuracy of modern ( and even some not so modern ) amplifier designs with
hugely
superior technical specs.

' Love is blind ' etc......

Graham

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure where Andre stands on that. But my view is that it is possible
that an SET, or other not-pure-reproducer types of amplifiers, could end up
helping some people imagine better that they are in the performance venue. I
have not experienced this myself. When I went to the NY Hifi show, there
were many SET exhibitors, some with horns. I think most were used in
combination with vinyl. I was not impressed, but neither was I impressed
with the Levinsons driving two concrete pillars in the middle of a
reflective room.

Love is blind, but it's great. For the fortunate, it's life-long.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

It was simply a light-hearted comparison as to how faith/belief can result
in
'unscientific' conclusions.

As in that religion would deny Darwin, so the SET believers would deny the
sonic
accuracy of modern ( and even some not so modern ) amplifier designs with
hugely
superior technical specs.

' Love is blind ' etc......

Graham

Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.

I'm not sure where Andre stands on that.

It does seem puzzling. I think he says whatever comes into his mind sometimes.

But my view is that it is possible
that an SET, or other not-pure-reproducer types of amplifiers, could end up
helping some people imagine better that they are in the performance venue. I
have not experienced this myself. When I went to the NY Hifi show, there
were many SET exhibitors, some with horns. I think most were used in
combination with vinyl. I was not impressed, but neither was I impressed
with the Levinsons driving two concrete pillars in the middle of a
reflective room.

In terms of recreating a sound that replicates or simulates a real performance
then it's a whole new game. A good case can be made for multi-speaker sytsems
with delay paths and added reverberation. I hardly think that the technical
limitations of an SET amp can be much help in this respect though.

Graham

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote

[snip]
Just for the record, because I think you and I are having a
misunderstanding, I deny categorically that I have ever tried to "meld"
scientific philosophy with anything antithetical to it. That, if you
meant it, would be the unkindest cut of all to a rationalist.

Andre Jute

All fine and good, but the initial post still leaves me with a question. Was
"What God wants..." merely a rhetorical flourish?

Good heavens, no! I rarely make a literary flourish generating an
unintended subtext. No, that was a straight-up provocation to the
arrogant who believe they know what their god wants. The whole original
post demonstrated that they cannot know. My sentence about not being
arrogant enough to judge god includes the subtext that I do not claim
to know what he wants, a deliberate negation of the title of the
thread.

The key is in my opening par:

Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

I am allergic to this,
for many people, the literal belief that the Universe is guided in a
teleological fashion.

I am sensitive to this problem. At a lesser level, I recently wrote on
RAO that I believe there should be only one world language because I
have experience of minority languages fueling irredentism. The thread
was probably called "Let them speak English" or something like it.

Historically, it has fueled much religious insanity;
"God wants you to be fruitful and multiply..." followed by calculations of
the "carrying capacity" of the planet, which, acccording to one religious
authority to be some 500 or 600 billion "souls."

That many people would have to sleep standing up!

When I wrote satire for radio and television, seeking inspiration I
made pilgrimage to the shrine of mathematical absurdity, the seat of
Archbishop Ussher, who calculated that the world was created in 4004BC.
Creationist math has a long, ludicrous history!

So, "What God wants..." was bound to set me off.

Ha! It is exactly the sort of statement that sets me off too.

The center of my speculation is that all logically consistent universes
exist. This allows me to vacate the concepts of "existent" and
"nonexistent". Razor redux.

Andre Jute
Darwin redux

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


It's very
popular to bash people on account of their personal
taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

Thus Morein condemns almost 100% of his posts to RAO.

Never about their taste, Arny. Only about assertions of
fact.

Robert, you have a long, sad, dreary, track record of not being able to tell
the difference.