4 ms·

Can someone please explain to me why a hypothesis of magnetic frequencies contained in an electromagnetic cache (i.e. MP3) are not plausible to be transformable

Can someone please explain to me why a hypothesis of magnetic frequencies contained in an electromagnetic cache (i.e. MP3) are not plausible to be transformable in real electrical output as opposed to downvoting me? It would be much more productive dialogue.

drdeca 5y ago
This seems a little word-salad-y ? MP3s are stored in bitstrings. It doesn't matter what the medium these bitstrings are stored in. The question being asked is a question about information, not about physics. So, your response is inapplicable.
- achillesheels 5y ago
  Yes, but what are bitstrings but elementally electrical action? What do you think information is fundamentally if it is not contained in a physical paradigm?
  - detaro 5y ago
    You could write the bitstring of MP3 on a piece of paper with a pen and it wouldn't change a thing.
    - achillesheels 5y ago
      Sir, surely you don’t imply that a computer can process that.
      - pixelbro 5y ago
        What he's implying, and what you're missing here, is that the discussion is about the FFT and MP3 algorithms, and how that signal processing affects the signal. The physical substrate which executes the algorithm is irrelevant to the discussion. Indeed, even the fact that the signal represents sound waves is irrelevant. We could build a computer that executes the same instructions on the same inputs mechanically, using gears and valves and whatnot, or perform the instructions manually on paper, and the algorithm would result in exactly the same output.
        achillesheels 5y ago
        Why don't you believe the principle of electromagnetic action effecting the algorithmic process vis-a-vis the mathematical transformation of the quantities of motion is irrelevant?
        drdeca 5y ago
        You’ve got the a double negation there. (I.e. you said “don’t” and “irrelevant”, when presumably what you meant to express would either have the “don’t” and “relevant” rather than “irrelevant”, or would lack the “don’t”) You are wording things very strangely (E.g. “principle of electromagnetic action”, “quantities of motion”). This greatly hinders communication. Are you able to say things in a more normal way? My guess is you are asking why they believe that the substrate the algorithm is implemented in is irrelevant. This is by nature of what it means to implement an algorithm. The same algorithm implemented faithfully (by which I mean, implemented such that it runs correctly, i.e. as specified) will behave the same regardless of the substrate, because what it means for the algorithm to run correctly is independent of the substrate. If it behaved differently in a different substrate, in that it gave a different output, then it would not be performing/implementing the same algorithm, by virtue of what it means to be implementing an algorithm.
        achillesheels 5y ago
        Sorry for the double negation, thank you for interpreting it. I am striving to speak in a natural scientific language where the wording is very precise. The concepts you give as examples are commonly found in the minds of great thinkers such as Maxwell and de Broglie. So to speak more commonly is frankly less than ideal. The algorithm being considered must be considered in an applied scientific paradigm. One is not simply examining a mathematical operation, but one which is being examined to cause natural movement - unless you believe an algorithmic process is occurring with nothing correspondent to nature? To consider it irrelevant to the question of the fidelity differences in a spectrogram analog conversion and an MP3 - which I must remind reader entails the electrical signal output to something humanely resourceful, e.g. listening in headphones - is lacking in critical insight. This is after all the original question, and not an issue of algorithmic differences, correct?
  - drdeca 5y ago
    "Elementally electrical action" ain't no well defined concept I've ever heard of.
    - achillesheels 5y ago
      Sorry, I meant “elementary”, as in “fundamentally” or “irreducibly”.
alanbernstein 5y ago
Your comment doesn't make sense, it sounds like new-age nonsense. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. What is a magnetic frequency? What does it mean to be "activated in time"? How does any of that relate to the question? There is no need for a "hypothesis" here, mp3 is not a mysterious physical phenomenon, it is a well-defined file format, backed by well-understood signal processing.
- achillesheels 5y ago
  Sir, it relates to how does the information in the mp3 file maintain its fidelity whereas a spectrogram transformation of the original analog sampling becomes corrupted. Are you familiar with digital signal processing and sampling theory? Are you familiar with it to the most fundamentally electromagnetic level of understanding? Are you familiar with how computer memory is electromagnetically cached? I’m quite alarmed that I am being virtually thrown under the bus by those who do not have the knowledge on how they program electromagnetic waveforms.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Sorry, but it's patently obvious that you are the one who isn't familiar with how any of this works. A spectrogram isn't corrupted, it's just a representation that chooses to not record some information - and thus it's not surprising that the information it excludes isn't recoverable. Whereas an MP3 is designed to include this information. That's all that is to it. Anything "electromagnetic" is entirely irrelevant at that level.
    - achillesheels 5y ago
      Well thank you for educating me on the spectrogram. But is not the spectrogram a digital system, ie software, output? Are you simply saying the program itself does not find it resourceful to reconstruct the analog time-series with complete fidelity? Why wouldn’t it? In theory it should be able to, know? I had been merely supposing the spectrogram software programming causes such spurious frequencies rather than actual filtering of what is still fundamentally electromagnetic action.

drdeca 5y ago

This seems a little word-salad-y ? MP3s are stored in bitstrings. It doesn't matter what the medium these bitstrings are stored in. The question being asked is a question about information, not about physics. So, your response is inapplicable.

achillesheels 5y ago
Yes, but what are bitstrings but elementally electrical action? What do you think information is fundamentally if it is not contained in a physical paradigm?
- detaro 5y ago
  You could write the bitstring of MP3 on a piece of paper with a pen and it wouldn't change a thing.
  - achillesheels 5y ago
    Sir, surely you don’t imply that a computer can process that.
    - pixelbro 5y ago
      What he's implying, and what you're missing here, is that the discussion is about the FFT and MP3 algorithms, and how that signal processing affects the signal. The physical substrate which executes the algorithm is irrelevant to the discussion. Indeed, even the fact that the signal represents sound waves is irrelevant. We could build a computer that executes the same instructions on the same inputs mechanically, using gears and valves and whatnot, or perform the instructions manually on paper, and the algorithm would result in exactly the same output.
      - achillesheels 5y ago
        Why don't you believe the principle of electromagnetic action effecting the algorithmic process vis-a-vis the mathematical transformation of the quantities of motion is irrelevant?
        drdeca 5y ago
        You’ve got the a double negation there. (I.e. you said “don’t” and “irrelevant”, when presumably what you meant to express would either have the “don’t” and “relevant” rather than “irrelevant”, or would lack the “don’t”) You are wording things very strangely (E.g. “principle of electromagnetic action”, “quantities of motion”). This greatly hinders communication. Are you able to say things in a more normal way? My guess is you are asking why they believe that the substrate the algorithm is implemented in is irrelevant. This is by nature of what it means to implement an algorithm. The same algorithm implemented faithfully (by which I mean, implemented such that it runs correctly, i.e. as specified) will behave the same regardless of the substrate, because what it means for the algorithm to run correctly is independent of the substrate. If it behaved differently in a different substrate, in that it gave a different output, then it would not be performing/implementing the same algorithm, by virtue of what it means to be implementing an algorithm.
        achillesheels 5y ago
        Sorry for the double negation, thank you for interpreting it. I am striving to speak in a natural scientific language where the wording is very precise. The concepts you give as examples are commonly found in the minds of great thinkers such as Maxwell and de Broglie. So to speak more commonly is frankly less than ideal. The algorithm being considered must be considered in an applied scientific paradigm. One is not simply examining a mathematical operation, but one which is being examined to cause natural movement - unless you believe an algorithmic process is occurring with nothing correspondent to nature? To consider it irrelevant to the question of the fidelity differences in a spectrogram analog conversion and an MP3 - which I must remind reader entails the electrical signal output to something humanely resourceful, e.g. listening in headphones - is lacking in critical insight. This is after all the original question, and not an issue of algorithmic differences, correct?
- drdeca 5y ago
  "Elementally electrical action" ain't no well defined concept I've ever heard of.
  - achillesheels 5y ago
    Sorry, I meant “elementary”, as in “fundamentally” or “irreducibly”.

alanbernstein 5y ago

Your comment doesn't make sense, it sounds like new-age nonsense. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. What is a magnetic frequency? What does it mean to be "activated in time"? How does any of that relate to the question? There is no need for a "hypothesis" here, mp3 is not a mysterious physical phenomenon, it is a well-defined file format, backed by well-understood signal processing.

achillesheels 5y ago
Sir, it relates to how does the information in the mp3 file maintain its fidelity whereas a spectrogram transformation of the original analog sampling becomes corrupted. Are you familiar with digital signal processing and sampling theory? Are you familiar with it to the most fundamentally electromagnetic level of understanding? Are you familiar with how computer memory is electromagnetically cached? I’m quite alarmed that I am being virtually thrown under the bus by those who do not have the knowledge on how they program electromagnetic waveforms.
- detaro 5y ago
  Sorry, but it's patently obvious that you are the one who isn't familiar with how any of this works. A spectrogram isn't corrupted, it's just a representation that chooses to not record some information - and thus it's not surprising that the information it excludes isn't recoverable. Whereas an MP3 is designed to include this information. That's all that is to it. Anything "electromagnetic" is entirely irrelevant at that level.
  - achillesheels 5y ago
    Well thank you for educating me on the spectrogram. But is not the spectrogram a digital system, ie software, output? Are you simply saying the program itself does not find it resourceful to reconstruct the analog time-series with complete fidelity? Why wouldn’t it? In theory it should be able to, know? I had been merely supposing the spectrogram software programming causes such spurious frequencies rather than actual filtering of what is still fundamentally electromagnetic action.