# Do you believe in the supposed powers of 432hz tuning?



## KallumS (Jan 13, 2019)

Some people believe that using 432hz tuning over A=440hz illicits positive effects on the human psyche or even that it possesses healing powers.

The argument is that 432hz is the natural frequency of the universe (lol) and that Mozart and Verdi used 432hz tuning forks. From what I can research, they tuned closer to 422hz.

I was wondering if anyone on the forum believes in the 432hz theory or even uses this tuning for their music? What effects do you perceive it as having?


----------



## StephenForsyth (Jan 13, 2019)

Good for tuning fork manufacturers.


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 13, 2019)

Mozart used A=421.6 Hz. At least that is what his piano maker used (they have his tuning fork). Also, Mozart's era used a different tuning system than we do which throws most of the other notes out of wack, reducing the magic if one were to use 432. Verdi preferred 435 Hz but apparently like 432 for demandingly high vocal parts.

The 432 Hz claim, as far as I can tell, is as follows. Wilfred Schumann postulated an electromagnetic resonance between the earth's surface and the ionosphere (1952) that when "played" by lightning strikes resonates within a known range of frequencies (since proven). The claimers of 432 say this resonance is 8 hz. 8 divides evenly into 432 (54 times), therefore 432 Hz is the magic number (and 8 Hz being the "heartbeat" of the earth, some source say Universe). Add a few composer's names in the mix and claims of ancient civilizations using it and you have a deeply meaningful spooky psuedo-fact.

Schumann Resonance, on average, is 7.83 Hz, not 8, and *varies *based on several several factors. Using 7.83 and the claimer's formula, we get A = 423 Hz. Then again, I say we should be using 431 Hz since it can be divided evenly by the gravitational constant of acceleration, the true heartbeat of the earth. Sorry for the sarcasm.

BTW, we have no senses to detect low amplitude extremely low freq electromagnetic radiation so we could not have evolved to react to it. But at high powers (see ELF system), some think it causes cancer. Another reason to stick with 440.

This is interesting


----------



## jaketanner (Jan 14, 2019)

I’ve tried this. Not sure about the power of 432, but I have to say it’s much more pleasing to my ears than 440. It’s also a much easier pitch for the human voice.


----------



## Ryan Fultz (Jan 14, 2019)

This can speak for my views.

TL;DW : its essentially bullcrap, but hearing something slightly lower tuned in relation to something higher generally will make the listener hear the lower tuning as warmer, but only heard back to back can people really tell a difference.


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 14, 2019)

It's absolute nonsense. There's nothing scientific to back the claim.


----------



## dflood (Jan 14, 2019)

I’ve heard a lot of people talk about sound waves as though they are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. They are not. They are mechanical waves propagated by oscillation of physical material in a physical medium. Electromagnetic waves are generated by oscillation of electrostatic and magnetic fields together and they do not require a physical medium. So the connection seems a bit tenuous.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 15, 2019)

Leave it as it is: orchestra at 443 and clarinets at 432 Hz


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 15, 2019)

Not only that, but farts at 432Hz are way more cleansing than 440Hz ones.


----------



## Shonx (Jan 15, 2019)

dflood said:


> I’ve heard a lot of people talk about sound waves as though they are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. They are not. They are mechanical waves propagated by oscillation of physical material in a physical medium. Electromagnetic waves are generated by oscillation of electrostatic and magnetic fields together and they do not rWhaequire a physical medium. So the connection seems a bit tenuous.



I always find it fascinating that sound doesn't actually exist outside of our own brains, we only hear because all of those mechanical waves are converted into electrical impulses by mechanisms in our ears and nervous system that convert those waves into audible frequencies, and so hearing is essentially pseudo-synaesthetic (very roughly "touch" to "hearing" although this becomes both around louder, lower sounds).

The 432 thing is clearly rubbish though and, IIRC, often based around just intonation and other anachronistic, non-standardised tuning styles when recalling differences with earlier composers.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 15, 2019)

432 Hz is quite some new-age bullshit. Also, listen to Adam Neely there.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 15, 2019)

Has anyone tried the thing where you put a sine wave on one ear and a slightly detuned sinewav on the other ear (at very specific frequency ranges that I can't remember) via headphones, and it's supposed to affect brainwaves... somehow? If I recall correctly it's marketed as "binaural beats" and usualy hidden in so much music that you barely hear it. Is that pure placebo too?


----------



## KallumS (Jan 15, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Has anyone tried the thing where you put a sine wave on one ear and a slightly detuned sinewav on the other ear (at very specific frequency ranges that I can't remember) via headphones, and it's supposed to affect brainwaves... somehow? If I recall correctly it's marketed as "binaural beats" and usualy hidden in so much music that you barely hear it. Is that pure placebo too?



So that would explain why I like Reese basses so much


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 15, 2019)

Oh it's so real!
Can feel the vibration of every single brain cell when a somehting is tuned in 432Hz!

(No, I don't actually believe in it)

Hard too judge though, as in side by side comparison both sound out of tune (with is wrong ofc, objectively speaking)


----------



## ptram (Jan 15, 2019)

I don't believe in it. If I want a more relaxed tuning, I transpose all my music a quarter tone down.

Paolo


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 15, 2019)

Math and music are analog, not digital. It has no relevance or significance

https://vi-control.net/community/threads/writing-in-432hz.69893/#post-4249212

Besides everyone knows d minor is the saddest of all keys


----------



## gregh (Jan 15, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Has anyone tried the thing where you put a sine wave on one ear and a slightly detuned sinewav on the other ear (at very specific frequency ranges that I can't remember) via headphones, and it's supposed to affect brainwaves... somehow? If I recall correctly it's marketed as "binaural beats" and usualy hidden in so much music that you barely hear it. Is that pure placebo too?


any frequency (within a certain range) you put to the brain will be reflected in the EEG - it is an effect that is used in some diagnostic and research procedures. 13 Hz is a common one. But even when we had old CRT monitors, the refresh rate would be reflected in the EEG


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 15, 2019)

gregh said:


> any frequency (within a certain range) you put to the brain will be reflected in the EEG - it is an effect that is used in some diagnostic and research procedures. 13 Hz is a common one. But even when we had old CRT monitors, the refresh rate would be reflected in the EEG



That's very interesting! Did someone find any frequencies in studies that had demonstrable and reproducible effects of some kind?


----------



## vagar (Jan 15, 2019)

Ah, the infamous Humbug tuning! Beware of paratunoia. 

That said, slightly tuning down (or up) an instrument does change its color, so it does sound different. One can find downtuning warmer, maybe soothingly so. Or just plain duller. It will make easier for opera singers to cut through an orchestra. But this is true whether you use 432, 430 or 424.2 Hz.


----------



## gregh (Jan 15, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> That's very interesting! Did someone find any frequencies in studies that had demonstrable and reproducible effects of some kind?


so long since I looked at this stuff - my memory is no - in fact no is what was needed for experiments. you "injected" a 13Hz signal by presenting a flicker to the eyes of the participant. Then you got them to do some taks or other and looked at how much that interfered with the strength of the brain 13Hz signal - ie you were looking for interference as a measure or resource allocation. But I never remember anyone saying there were decrements to function just because of the resources allocated to the 13Hz flicker signal. The thing is that everyone's brain is slightly different, eg the "peak alpha" frequency that everyone has is a different frequency for everyone (not by much and within a range of a few Hz so bound to be overlap between people) but more importantly the peak alpha frequency is incredibly stable - one of the most stable physiological measurements if not the most stable


----------



## willbedford (Jan 15, 2019)

Snake oil. Pitch is relative. If you compare 440Hz and 432Hz side by side, of course 432Hz will sound 'warmer'. Likewise, if you compare 432 and 424, 424 will sound warmer. Why is no one preaching about how amazing 424Hz sounds?
To take it a step further, if you take a piece of music in 440 and transpose everything down by 1 semitone but remain at 440, it will sound warmer still.


----------



## SchnookyPants (Jan 15, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not only that, but farts at 432Hz are way more cleansing than 440Hz ones.



Of course - Closer to the bottom end.


----------



## robgb (Jan 15, 2019)

I prefer 450Hz myself.


----------



## CT (Jan 15, 2019)

I definitely think something sonically interesting happens to real instruments when tuned up or down. It's changing the physical characteristics of the strings or air columns, which can make things feel more tense, or more loose.

Obviously this doesn't apply to samples, although it can still sound interesting with them.

But no, I don't think tuning will align my chakras or anything.


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 15, 2019)

Throw in some conspiracy about how everything used to be 432hz until the Nazi's discovered a way to torture subjects through experimenting with offsetting the frequency to what we know now as A440 then tie in the Rockerfeller's as ones who conspired with the Nazi's to bring it to the US and thus helping standardize it across the world and you've got a great little viral you tube video for all the conspiracy theorists. Wait, someone already did that, never mind. Well, either way as long as you can find a way to tie in the Nazi's and the Rockerfeller's together you'll get a lot of hits


----------



## ohernie (Jan 15, 2019)

Reminds me of the amateur violin maker that told me he saved earwax to use in his varnish. Need I explain why?


----------



## Akarin (Jan 15, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Math and music are analog, not digital. It has no relevance or significance
> 
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/writing-in-432hz.69893/#post-4249212
> 
> Besides everyone knows d minor is the saddest of all keys




New Age bullshit and Spinal Tap in the same thread... I like that.


----------



## alanb (Jan 16, 2019)

gregh said:


> any frequency (within a certain range) you put to the brain will be reflected in the EEG - it is an effect that is used in some diagnostic and research procedures. 13 Hz is a common one. But even when we had old CRT monitors, the refresh rate would be reflected in the EEG



Incidentally, it is also a myth that a 9Hz tone will be reflected in the BVDs . . . . .


----------



## TimCox (Jan 16, 2019)

KallumS said:


> The argument is that 432hz is the natural frequency of the universe (lol)



This is the only point I ever bring up when one of my student's asks me about it, haha

It's all bunk of course. 432hz, 440hz doesn't matter especially to a guitarist like myself, we're always out of tune anyway


----------



## rottoy (Jan 16, 2019)

TimCox said:


> This is the only point I ever bring up when one of my student's asks me about it, haha
> 
> It's all bunk of course. 432hz, 440hz doesn't matter especially to a guitarist like myself, we're always out of tune anyway


Typical guitarist, solving tuning issues by playing a different tune altogether from the rest of the band.
"You're playing Back in Black? I was playing Take Five!"


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 16, 2019)

Prof. Gasto Bowelinski of Kohler University has proposed the tuning of A based on a more natural phenomenon.

_The *brown note* is a hypothetical infrasonic frequency that would cause humans to lose control of their bowels due to resonance._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note

I'm glad to finally know the science of why my music has this affect on its listeners.


----------



## Tfis (Jan 16, 2019)




----------



## storyteller (Jan 16, 2019)

Let me tell you a true story....

Light, sound, touch, taste, etc - all of the senses are interconnected. All of the senses are going to be discerned slightly differently by each person. All of these senses are basically ways to recognize vibrations (e.g. frequencies).

While it is a little tougher to explain in a short post here, all of creation is built upon spheres and the vibrational resonances thereof. There is no such thing as a line at all. It is a three dimensional human construct for interpreting the interconnected diameters of spheres. We see interpretations of this concept in things like the rainbow or hear it in concepts like the notes in a musical scale. The human brain has to use lines because it is part of the construct used for our brains to interpret the vibrations from this density.

But here is where it gets a little weird. Stay with me. The human perspective only can experience 7 of the 9 spheres that are part of the architecture of creation. Think of the world like a wavy mirror in a fun house. That is life on Earth. Two spheres are essentially hidden from view. So overall there are nine spheres. 

You may be thinking, *"What the heck is storyteller talking about? Spheres?"* Just rest assured I'm giving you a high level overview of a very deep concept that is part of why the musical scale is what it is. Socrates, Plato, Tesla, Einstein, Davinci, Michaelagelo? They all knew of this concept. It has been hidden for ages. But it is how the tonal scale was created... Anyway, I digress...

These nine spheres have numeric representations due to the observational order in which they are manifested. It is a bit more complicated than this, but think of it as *order* for now. These numeric representations overlay dimensional existence and creations that are observable and not observable to the human eye.

The short version - and where this is all heading to - is that the Solfeggio scale (a scale based on NINE even divisions of frequency) is wherethe 432hz concept gains traction. However, this is NOT the resonance of the Universe/Creation/etc. In fact, the actual number is 417hz and it serves more as an anchor to the human experience... a pin on a map if you will.

If someone were to ask, "What is the actual true definition of red?" modern science would give some technical jargon and a frequency range or the "red range." But there is not a finite, concrete definition of "red." The same thing goes for "What is the frequency of the note A?" People had to pick a relative pitch. They chose 440, but it could be any frequency nearby. It wasn't absolute.

However, as surely as I am typing this, the actual pin on the map that defines an absolute value for A is 417hz, and the frequency for the color red is 417x10^12 hz. 

Now, you might htink, "_oh the frequency of the note B must be the next color in the visual spectrum!_" You'd not be wrong. In fact, the Earth is tonaly located in the Key of E where A=417hz. This can then extrapolate to the following:

E: 312.3970255 hz
F#: 350.6538052 hz
G#: 371.5047655 hz
A: 417 hz
B: 468.0666741hz
C#: 525.3870778 hz
D#: 589.7270555 hz
E: 624.7940511 hz

NOW MULTIPLY x10 to the 12th power to get the visual spectrum of frequencies. But, it has to mathematically converted to nanometers since that is the chosen measurement for color. I consider this to be "the next octave of the sensory palette" whereas sound is located in the first "cube" range and light being represented as the cubing of the cube range (more or less).

E: 479.83 nm
F#: 427.48 nm
G#: 403.48 nm 
A: 718.93 nm
B: 640.49 nm
C#: 570.61 nm
D#: 508.36 nm
E: 479.83 nm

These correspond to the colors: 

Blue
Indigo
Violet
Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue

So mathematically, yes there is a tone that is part of creation. Yes, there is a reason to use certain tunings. And yes, it affects people spiritually and metaphysically. 432hz has its own specialty. But for now, know that you will not find anything above compiled elsewhere other than the books I have written. I just haven't really marketed them yet. Maybe now is that time. 

How do I know this? Well, I've written 12 books over the last 7 years that touch on this subject. This specific concept is explained in brevity in a book called *Secrets (Book 8 from the series, The Nine)* *available HERE*. The concept is spelled out much more simply with 240+ illustrations, and a reversible book for adults and children alike. It is called *Welcome to Being Human: An Instruction Book for Every Soul available HERE. *They are available on Amazon and in your local bookstores worldwide.

_FWIW, the majority of what you will find related to Solfeggio scales online today was based off an app I created for the iOS AppStore years ago and the compilation of information I originally published from Plato, Socrates, etc. And, if you dare to delve deeper into the origins of langauge (how thought came into form), you will find it is based on this same principle. The 9 apps I have on the AppStore for the Origins of Language *https://itunes.apple.com/us/app-bundle/id1071737364?mt=8 (available HERE)*are the source for many of the sites you will find this information online. Very little was understood about that when I wrote about it, but what you will research today is a circular reference to these apps - and ultimately these books._


----------



## VinRice (Jan 16, 2019)

It's bollocks...


----------



## creativeforge (Jan 16, 2019)

Then there is this...



And the back story.

https://www.cancertutor.com/wholetones-music-frequencies/


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 16, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Let me tell you a true story....
> 
> Light, sound, touch, taste, etc - all of the senses are interconnected. All of the senses are going to be discerned slightly differently by each person. All of these senses are basically ways to recognize vibrations (e.g. frequencies).
> 
> _FWIW, the majority of what you will find related to Solfeggio scales online today was based off an app I created for the iOS AppStore years ago and the compilation of information I originally published from Plato, Socrates, etc. And, if you dare to delve deeper into the origins of langauge (how thought came into form), you will find it is based on this same principle. The 9 apps I have on the AppStore for the Origins of Language *https://itunes.apple.com/us/app-bundle/id1071737364?mt=8 (available HERE)*are the source for many of the sites you will find this information online. Very little was understood about that when I wrote about it, but what you will research today is a circular reference to these apps - and ultimately these books._



I was going to mention that your claims are confused and jumbled, unconnected and misleading, constructions of mystical nonsense that prey on the gullible and amateur thinker. I was going to say your math is wrong and that you can't convert sound freqs to light freqs because they have different speeds in their medium and that length is arbitrary (always a magic killer), but, I see from your book that you are from a planet other than earth.

*Welcome to Being Human*
_"Ever since humans arrived on Earth, they have - for better or worse - bounced around the planet without any sense of direction. And what if you wrote that instruction book before arriving on Earth so that one day, in your human form, you would find it and be able to look upon your life with an entirely different perspective?" _

BTW, I am a full blooded (659 nanometers red) earthling and my family has been here for several million years.

I'm guessing you are joking here. Amusing.


----------



## TimCox (Jan 16, 2019)

rottoy said:


> Typical guitarist, solving tuning issues by playing a different tune altogether from the rest of the band.
> "You're playing Back in Black? I was playing Take Five!"


As long as I crank the master volume everybody else will just play what I'm playing!


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 16, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Let me tell you a true story....


is it about a man named Jed? Poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed?


----------



## storyteller (Jan 16, 2019)

Craig Duke said:


> I was going to mention that your claims are confused and jumbled, unconnected and misleading, constructions of mystical nonsense that pray on the gullible and amateur thinker. I was going to say your math is wrong and that you can't convert sound freqs to light freqs because they have different speeds in their medium and that length is arbitrary (always a magic killer), but, I see from your book that you are from a planet other than earth.
> 
> BTW, I am a full blooded (659 nanometers red) earthling and my family has been here for several million years.
> 
> I'm guessing you are joking here. Amusing.


_I'm guessing you speak before thinking. Less amusing. _

On another note, I'll gladly send you free iTunes promo codes for both books if you actually care about learning something before speaking. If you read the entire description (not just the first two sentences) of *Welcome to Being Human*, you would see the book uses a writing device explaining how the book arrived here with the information in it. Yes it is fun. Yes the premise is creative. But the book itself is written to make 400 pages of philosophy, religion, math, and science be as easy and fun to read as humanly possible.

Or you can always flip *Welcome To Being Human* over (since it is reversible) and read the three illustrated children stories if that is more on your critical thinking level. Maybe its just a bit scary to hear something like this, but it doesn't mean it is not true.

_You also liked the video on healing frequencies just after my post and just before your reply to mine. He is talking about solfeggio frequencies there... the same thing I just posted above.  That critical thinking thing again..._


----------



## alanb (Jan 16, 2019)

storyteller said:


> [ . . . ] all of creation is built upon spheres and the vibrational resonances thereof. There is no such thing as a line at all. It is a three dimensional human construct for interpreting the interconnected diameters of spheres [ . . . ]
> 
> But here is where it gets a little weird. Stay with me. The human perspective only can experience 7 of the 9 spheres that are part of the architecture of creation. Think of the world like a wavy mirror in a fun house. That is life on Earth. Two spheres are essentially hidden from view. So overall there are nine spheres.




Yep . . .
_
[leans back in oversized chair; takes thoughtful puff from pipe]_

My ol' buddy Eudoxus was always going on about that stuff, but he could never get it, uh, straight . . . _[coughs]_ . . . and y'all know how far it got _him_.........

You know, those first nine spheres were pretty sweet. But then, next thing you know, he was up to 27 spheres, and everyone was screaming "bloatware!" (in ancient Greek, mind you), and I swear to Zeus I _%#[email protected]!^_ *TOLD* him not to let _[email protected]^!$^_ Callippus get his grubby little paws all over everything, onna counta he’d just screw everything up... which, plain as day, he did... there we were, with even MORE spheres.......

And that's why we only hear nice things about Aristotle and Ptolemy in school, nowadays . . .

_{snort}_

Yeah, _%$#@!^_ Aristotle . . . that guy had _%$#@!^#@$#^_ *FIFTY-FIVE (55) SPHERES* going on in his nutty little universe, and yet we all continue to act like he was cool, and smart, and all "Father of Western Philosophy"-like, and all that other hagiographic crap they always got goin' on about _him_.......

_{grows increasingly agitated}_

Didn't you ever stop to wonder why?

*IT'S ALL A GIANT COVER-UP — THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW — GET WOKE, PEOPLES!!!!!*


----------



## gregh (Jan 16, 2019)

storyteller said:


> _I'm guessing you speak before thinking. Less amusing. _
> 
> On another note, I'll gladly send you free iTunes promo codes for both books if you actually care about learning something before speaking. If you read the entire description (not just the first two sentences) of *Welcome to Being Human*, you would see the book uses a writing device explaining how the book arrived here with the information in it. Yes it is fun. Yes the premise is creative. But the book itself is written to make 400 pages of philosophy, religion, math, and science be as easy and fun to read as humanly possible.
> 
> ...


Is it a sort of scifi fantasy with philosophical intent? Like Robert Anton Wilson, or PK Dicks Valis novels?


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> How do I know this? Well, I've written 12 books over the last 7 years that touch on this subject.



Without touching on the other stuff here, I just want to point out that this is terrible reasoning.

I know FOR A FACT that earth is run by shape-shifting lizards. How do I know this? Well, here's a tweet from last week where I claim it to be true. 

'Knowing stuff' comes from experience, double-blind tests, testing hypotheses... not from having a hunch, writing a book and then calling the book evidence itself. At _best_ that's intellectual dishonesty...


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Let me tell you a true story....
> 
> Light, sound, touch, taste, etc - all of the senses are interconnected. All of the senses are going to be discerned slightly differently by each person. All of these senses are basically ways to recognize vibrations (e.g. frequencies).
> 
> ...


----------



## vagar (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> I've written 12 books over the last 7 years that touch on this subject. This specific concept is explained in brevity in a book called *Secrets (Book 8 from the series, The Nine)* *available HERE*.



And that's all there is to it. Better save your cash for the next OT releases.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Maybe its just a bit scary to hear something like this, but it doesn't mean it is not true.



Ever heard of Hitchen's razor?


----------



## Lode_Runner (Jan 17, 2019)

Sorry to go off topic but does anyone know how far I need to turn this knob to reach 432hz?


----------



## vagar (Jan 17, 2019)

Lode_Runner said:


> Sorry to go off topic but does anyone know how far I need to turn this knob to reach 432hz?



To the point where you feel the most contentment, clarity, peacefulness, resonance with the universe and healing effects. Where else? Your chi will whisper it in your ears.


----------



## KallumS (Jan 17, 2019)

Lode_Runner said:


> Sorry to go off topic but does anyone know how far I need to turn this knob to reach 432hz?



I believe you need to tune down -0.31 semitones.


----------



## vagar (Jan 17, 2019)

KallumS said:


> I believe you need to tune down -0.31 semitones.



-0.3176665363342927164, to be more precise, -0.31 would produce a tuning of 432.1913477343657478492 Hz and you could still miss the sweet spot, as 440 apparently does.

But all that boring, dry math is just cheating. 

If there is anything to this, one should be able to lock onto the right frequency just by turning the knob to whatever feels the best.


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> _I'm guessing you speak before thinking. Less amusing.
> You also liked the video on healing frequencies just after my post and just before your reply to mine. He is talking about solfeggio frequencies there... the same thing I just posted above.  That critical thinking thing again..._


I read what you wrote and drew my conclusions. I read technical papers all day and yours, I'm sorry to say, was a confused mumbo gumbo. I spent a few hours on the flat earth forum the other day. That is your target audience. You should get a good reception there. That's my advice.

I followed the link @creativeforge provided. It's one thing to spout mystical nonsense dressed up as science to the general public, but to make such claims to cancer patients as a potential cure is going too far. That site also promotes vitamin supplements and light treatment to both prevent and kill cancer cells. That crosses a line.


----------



## Joe Maron (Jan 17, 2019)

42


----------



## KallumS (Jan 17, 2019)

420hz is the most relaxing but paranoia inducing frequency


----------



## storyteller (Jan 17, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> Without touching on the other stuff here, I just want to point out that this is terrible reasoning.
> 
> 'Knowing stuff' comes from experience, double-blind tests, testing hypotheses... not from having a hunch, writing a book and then calling the book evidence itself. At _best_ that's intellectual dishonesty...


Fair point.  I should have said that I’ve spent 7 years writing 12 books on the research, theories, proofs, and knowledge that has been gained over that duration. That would have been more appropriately stated.

I could have said I was invited and spent 3 years on the board of an Autism Treatment Center in order to help and share this research for autistic patients and those with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.

I could have said these concepts are so well accepted in the scientific community (who have seen them) that a major chiropractic center in the U.S. invited me to partner with them to bring this technology to the world because they saw, read, and understood the benefits of the science behind it. It is a much deeper concept that involves all sorts of biological manipulation based on resonant patterns.

I could have said I spent a large portion of my life (before I took a life changing sabbatical) in medical analytics for insurance companies working to assess disease discovery and therapy/treatment methods, eventually getting into genomics, dna research, etc.

I could have said I have over 17 years in healthcare and technology related fields that have provided a foundational aspect to what is written.

I could have - and possibly should have said - something more concrete to try not to have the post ridiculed. You guys know me as someone who created OTR and enjoys composing. So, yes, maybe it sounds a bit out of place on this forum, but when the question was asked, I felt led to answer and contribute.

The truth is, unless a person chooses to dive into a subject beyond what humans have been conditioned to believe as truth, they will find fault in anything written. And realistically, even though all of the math is there, the research and proofs are there, etc, it will take a large leap away from what feels safe before it ties all back together. Yes, it involves spiritual concepts and that causes some to be afraid of the content. But it does prove out... mathematically and scientifically without leaving it at “spooky things at a distance.” That is what is unique here. It is somewhat the tie that binds Eastern and Western philosophies, science, etc. But above all, it is about God.

And while your point is fair in how the first post was written, it is _*not*_ intellectual dishonesty by any means. Your post is just derogatory without reading the content. Again, truth can be stranger than fiction. In this case, it is done so with written proofs and justifications. Academically, it is rock solid.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 17, 2019)

gregh said:


> Is it a sort of scifi fantasy with philosophical intent? Like Robert Anton Wilson, or PK Dicks Valis novels?


Not exactly but gnosticism is very much at the spiritual heart of Meditative practices and such. So it is similar in topic, but they came at it from different perspectives. Admittedly, I have not read novels by either author, so I am can only speak about what I have read about their philosophies and styles of writing.


----------



## JPComposer (Jan 17, 2019)

No one knows the truth.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 17, 2019)

I do. The Knicks will not win the NBA title this year. Truth.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> I could have said these concepts are so well accepted in the scientific community (who have seen them) that a major chiropractic center in the U.S. invited me to partner with them to bring this technology to the world because they saw, read, and understood the benefits of the science behind it.




You do realise chiropracty is widely regarded as quackery, right? You may as well be touting endorsement from homeopaths. There is an absolutely appalling drought of critical thinking these days.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 17, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> You do realise chiropracty is widely regarded as quackery, right? You may as well be touting endorsement from homeopaths. There is an absolutely appalling drought of critical thinking these days.



I know a programmer who knows a guy who - I quote: "heals" - people by drawing arcane looking signs on a piece of paper. Iirc that magic healer was the father of a friend of his, and has a high enough success rate that he gets the "untreatable" cases from places referred to him and actually can help some of them. Still all well within the realm of possibility explained by pure placebo effect I think. Then the programmer showed me a photo of the tattoo of those magic symbols that he got for himself x]... *sigh*


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Fair point.  I should have said that I’ve spent 7 years writing 12 books on the research, theories, proofs, and knowledge that has been gained over that duration. That would have been more appropriately stated.
> 
> I could have said I was invited and spent 3 years on the board of an Autism Treatment Center in order to help and share this research for autistic patients and those with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.
> 
> ...



So rock solid that you just spend a gigantic post proving something without proving anything. In fact, this only made it worse. Either give the facts or stop pretending you found some higher truth where there is none to be found.

So tell me:

What scientific community? Chiropractic does not count as scientific, sorry. It is the biggest insult to real medical research to exist, and dangerous at that.

How is it deeper? In what way is it biological manipulation? What resonant patterns and how do they affect the body?

Which genomics, which DNA research? Show don't tell.

17 years in what healthcare and technology? Who are you, where can I find you and where can I check up on wether you actually say the truth?

In what way have we been conditioned? Yes, we find fault in what you write because you come up with what sounds like the most incoherent gobbledegook without backing up a single claim. This has nothing to do with what we have been conditioned to believe, this has everything to do with critical thinking.

In what ways does it tie Eastern and Western philosophies? How does it prove out?

I don't find his post derogatory, I find yours derogatory. You sound pretty condescending knowing some unknowable truth that only Plato, Socrates, and you have known. Yes, truth can be stranger than fiction. Science has proven that. Actual science.

Sorry for the harsh tone, and I don't take this on you as a person or a composer, but I am definitely allergic to people spouting nonsense without backing up what they say.


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Academically, it is rock solid.



I shall await your peer reviewed articles in esteemed scientific publications, and subsequently your Nobel prize.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 17, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> You do realise chiropracty is widely regarded as quackery, right? You may as well be touting endorsement from homeopaths. There is an absolutely appalling drought of critical thinking these days.


You do realize chiropractic is recognized by insurers and the medical community the world over as a very valid form of treatment? These companies who are publically traded and whose financial survival typically involves removing any unjustifiable treatments for insured patients have made that continued decision after crunching tons of analytics year after year. FWIW, acupuncture and a number of other holistic therapies are now starting to be covered. The largest and most renowned chiropractic school is founded almost entirely on holistic energy principles. It doesn't mean every chiropractor is good, right, or truly understands their field and can be seen as a bad egg (as in any field), but the foundational knowledge is still the same. It doesn't discount modern science and medicine either - for all is important. The greatest analytical thinkers employed to make those decisions cannot justify chiropractic as quackery.

But this isn't about justifying the chiropractic field. The intention was to bring knowledge when it appeared from many of the posts that people do not find any reason or seek to understand why so many people have believed sound and tunings have a form of healing properties. With respect, I assume you believe yourself to be a critical thinker. I will gladly take as much time as it takes to facetime, skype, etc to walk you through it all from the very beginning. Record it if you choose. I'd only ask you bring an open mind that wants to learn and have read the books prior to the conversation. My offer stands with you as well. I will gladly send you free download codes if you will agree to take the time to read them and form valid arguments that support your viewpoint and could disprove anything from the books. There cannot be a better form of critical thinking on a subject than to have an educated and open discussion with a well-researched author of a topic that you find in conflict with your belief structure.


----------



## tack (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> You do realize chiropractic is recognized by insurers and the medical community the world over as a very valid form of treatment?


My benefits also cover Reiki and homeopathy. That's not an endorsement of scientific validity. The number crunching could well establish that there's a cost-benefit incentive to cover placebo.


----------



## Quasar (Jan 17, 2019)

Rasmus Hartvig said:


> I shall await your peer reviewed articles in esteemed scientific publications, and subsequently your Nobel prize.



This thread should probably be moved to the off-topic or drama zone area...

Though I would not in any way vouch for the veracity of of storyteller's claims (which, truthfully, I am not interested in vetting and thus will not judge, since my bias tends in favor of traditional religious approaches and ancient spiritual practices for conscious exploration of subtle reality beyond the gross material)...

...It should be pointed out that statements like the one quoted above, which presuppose the veracity of the scientific method for determining Truth, reveal merely another form of epistemological fundamentalism which - although dominant in the developed world today - is not characteristic of the way most human beings have seen the nature of reality in most times and places, and has only gained currency since the European Enlightenment.

It both amuses and bemuses me that this entire argument seems to hinge on perceived credibility within the scientific community, as though scientific materialism has to be the last word on anything and everything. Not all of us share this worldview.


----------



## chibear (Jan 17, 2019)

https://ask.audio/articles/music-theory-432-hz-tuning-separating-fact-from-fiction

Aside from this, no one has considered the fact that Berlin and Vienna orchestras (and probably many others) tune considerably above 440.

Also consider that the pitch of any live ensemble is fluid over the course if a performance, depending on temperature, fatigue, and any other number of variables. It's only in DAWs that we can get totally consistent tuning.

Finally, consider the logistics of lowering the pitch of acoustic instruments that much. In brass and winds you can only add so much tubing without totally disrupting the overtone series and thus wrecking the instrument. How do you add metal to pitched percussion like the glok.. to lower them, or wood to the marimba??


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> This thread should probably be moved to the off-topic or drama zone area...
> 
> Though I would not in any way vouch for the veracity of of storyteller's claims (which, truthfully, I am not interested in vetting and thus will not judge, since my bias tends in favor of traditional religious approaches and ancient spiritual practices for conscious exploration of subtle reality beyond the gross material)...
> 
> ...



Indeed not. Nothing wrong with that EXCEPT when we are starting to talk about using healing properties to cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Autism, etc.

These are serious cases that require serious research and serious solutions. To fly against the people who are devoting their lives to actually understand and maybe cure these with undefinable bollocks is not only an insult to those people, but the people who have these symptoms as well, and their families. It is making a mockery of things that have already brought great disaster on too many people by claiming you have some unknowable magic truth, and I find that unforgivable.


----------



## Jerry Growl (Jan 17, 2019)

I strongly believe in the Power of cutting narrowly @ 432hz on my EQ 

It often cuts crap


----------



## storyteller (Jan 17, 2019)

DS_Joost said:


> So rock solid that you just spend a gigantic post proving something without proving anything. In fact, this only made it worse. Either give the facts or stop pretending you found some higher truth where there is none to be found.
> 
> So tell me:
> 
> ...


I think @Quasar probably had the best response to this. Thank you q for that. To @DS_Joost - It was derogatory because you attacked everything but the actual material. And to @tack's point, the greater question is what causes the perceived placebo effect and can that be understood? This is addressed in the writing. And certainly, your cause for concern about people spouting cures for diseases is well founded... though I never said anything directly about that, though I will say that the principles in this writing do serve as the foundational principles for that form of healing to take place. 

Actually, all of the questions above are answered in the books themselves - including my work history, career, etc. You would need to start at the beginning of all of the books to address all of the questions appropriately. And yes, many of the books are written from a religious perspective as my journey began. Though I was always faithful and true in my religious practice, I began my research with science as my stallion - trying to prove/disprove eastern/homeopathic/meditative practices. Somewhere along the way, I had to jump off the stallion of science and walk by faith alone. And then after journeying to a certain point, came back with the other side of the knowledge that served as the missing key to tie the two varying perspectives together. Yes, through math. Yes through science. Yes through religion. Yes through holistic concepts as well as western medical approaches. That's why I wrote about it. There are pieces in these books that have not been written about in such a way before. It is a way I've decided to contribute this knowledge to others... which ultimately holds the answers to the OP question about 432hz.

FWIW, tuning to A=444 will also produces certain effects. This is why A=440 has been a moving target for so long. Otherwise, everyone (including the greatest composers and musicians of all time) would have quit questioning the narrative and just said, "Cool. 440 it will always be. No need to think any other way."


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 17, 2019)

storyteller said:


> I think @Quasar probably had the best response to this. Thank you q for that. To @DS_Joost - It was derogatory because you attacked everything but the actual material. And to @tack's point, the greater question is what causes the perceived placebo effect and can that be understood? This is addressed in the writing. And certainly, your cause for concern about people spouting cures for diseases is well founded... though I never said anything directly about that, though I will say that the principles in this writing do serve as the foundational principles for that form of healing to take place.
> 
> Actually, all of the questions above are answered in the books themselves - including my work history, career, etc. You would need to start at the beginning of all of the books to address all of the questions appropriately. And yes, many of the books are written from a religious perspective as my journey began. Though I was always faithful and true in my religious practice, I began my research with science as my stallion - trying to prove/disprove eastern/homeopathic/meditative practices. Somewhere along the way, I had to jump off the stallion of science and walk by faith alone. And then after journeying to a certain point, came back with the other side of the knowledge that served as the missing key to tie the two varying perspectives together. Yes, through math. Yes through science. Yes through religion. Yes through holistic concepts as well as western medical approaches. That's why I wrote about it. There are pieces in these books that have not been written about in such a way before. It is a way I've decided to contribute this knowledge to others... which ultimately holds the answers to the OP question about 432hz.
> 
> FWIW, tuning to A=444 will also produces certain effects. This is why A=440 has been a moving target for so long. Otherwise, everyone (including the greatest composers and musicians of all time) would have quit questioning the narrative and just said, "Cool. 440 it will always be. No need to think any other way."



And yet you give no answers again. No, I shouldn't have to read your books to find the answer to why I should believe you in the first place. You are a really strange salesman. Then again, I was always wary of you when you started selling a Reaper product on the back of other scriptwriters, but I guess business is business. And again, you don't give answers, only vague notions of how your journey went. I am not interested in your journey, I am interested in the back up of your claims, starting with a validation of how much of a trusted source you are on said subject. No claims, but links, resumes, papers. Actual validation, not some story of how you went through various phases in life. You know, things you have actually done that prove that you are more than just an anonymous person on a forum claiming things. Your books have no reviews, I can't find them anywhere except for where you linked to, you are known on Amazon as Jonathan (Jonathan who?) and nothing else, no one talks about them... so why would I read them?

Give me an actual reason to read them, a little better than ''if you read it you will find out''. This isn't Buzzfeed.


----------



## Quasar (Jan 17, 2019)

DS_Joost said:


> Indeed not. Nothing wrong with that EXCEPT when we are starting to talk about using healing properties to cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Autism, etc...



Though I am neither a philosophical nor theological materialist, I do agree with you about this. Obviously, if one makes _material_ claims about a product or practice (It _will_ cure your cancer, it _will_ enable you to pick the winning lotto numbers etc.) then the veracity of such claims can and should be vetted on their own material terms, so I have no issue with using standard scientific/empirical methods for this purpose.

Analyzing how matter appears to behave mechanistically on the 4-D physical surface is the one thing that the scientific method is actually good for...


----------



## vagar (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> ...It should be pointed out that statements like the one quoted above, which presuppose the veracity of the scientific method for determining Truth, reveal merely another form of epistemological fundamentalism which - although dominant in the developed world today - is not characteristic of the way most human beings have seen the nature of reality in most times and places, and has only gained currency since the European Enlightenment.



All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 17, 2019)

DS_Joost said:


> Ever heard of Hitchen's razor?


Right. "*What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence*"
Or as Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Run a controlled experiment monitoring the release of neurotransmitters (if that's possible non-invasively), fMRI the brain looking at pleasure centers, pupil dilation, heart rate, electrodermal activity, have the subjects rank their subjective response to various pitches, ... A piece of cake for a neuroscience lab I would think. One would have to convince them it's worth pursuing.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 17, 2019)

DS_Joost said:


> And yet you give no answers again. No, I shouldn't have to read your books to find the answer to why I should believe you in the first place. You are a really strange salesman. Then again, I was always wary of you when you started selling a Reaper product on the back of other scriptwriters, but I guess business is business. And again, you don't give answers, only vague notions of how your journey went. I am not interested in your journey, I am interested in the back up of your claims, starting with a validation of how much of a trusted source you are on said subject. No claims, but links, resumes, papers. Actual validation, not some story of how you went through various phases in life. You know, things you have actually done that prove that you are more than just an anonymous person on a forum claiming things. Your books have no reviews, I can't find them anywhere except for where you linked to, you are known on Amazon as Jonathan (Jonathan who?) and nothing else, no one talks about them... so why would I read them?
> 
> Give me an actual reason to read them, a little better than ''if you read it you will find out''. This isn't Buzzfeed.


In all fairness, if you have to answer "why you should believe someone in the first place" then the conversation with you has already lost its merit. You don't have to read them. They haven't been marketed publically yet as the original purpose was to get the content all available to be read at once by those seeking the full answers. The books _are available_ at major book retailers in hardcover and paperback (they are distributed through Ingram) and all major ebook retailers as well. You may not get anything out of them. Or perhaps you would... just like anything else you might happen to read. Consider them just another tidbit of potential knowledge out there that you can choose to read or not.

My author name is one name. That is correct. _It is intentional_ because the entire philosophy behind the books is that it is NOT about the author, but about the content... that anyone could have the same experiences, discover the same concepts, and arrive at the same knowledge that is provable mathematically and scientifically. It has been an intentional journey of humility for me (despite it seeming like avoidance of the question to you... it is quite the contrary). Many respected books from antiquity had no notable author or in some cases, were attributed to pennames... which is part of the inspiration. There is only _one true source_ that creates the knowledge that is expressed. But all that you asked is answered in them... Read the descriptions. If they interest you, read them. If not, go about your life never the wiser to what was contained within them. There is no salesmanship here because people often find what they are looking for when they seek it. If you aren't seeking it, then there's no sense in giving you a sales pitch. If your curiosity gets to you, then take a peek... or research the topics elsewhere on the web. Start with solfeggio tones and learn what they actually are mathematically and scientifically.

*Regarding OTR... (and anyone who reads this thread in the future and sees the silliness in the banter)*
I personally wrote over 300 scripts that are included in the product, plus married a bunch of other people's scripts (with their blessings) and provided my own personal templates and workflows. So yes, I had overhead. I charged justly for the work that was put into it. I also quit charging for it once the development expenses for the web development/marketing materials/server/etc were covered in order to honor the Reaper's community generous contribution philosophy. So now anyone can download it for free. I'm not sure why you want to give backhanded comments? It is like throwing knives for no reason. It is available for FREE. Did anyone else create it? No. Was it there beforehand? No. Is it used by a sizable number of users and major composers? Yes. Has it opened the door for me to further develop out custom workflows for other major composers? Yes. Has it contributed positively to the Reaper community? Yes. So I contributed in a way that enough people found fair to recoup the costs so that now people can get it for free. Sounds like a win-win to me? Not sure how that would make you wary.

But, if you want to load your comments in the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger in my direction, then please at least have read the books and have a reason. Otherwise, it is just character assassination with prejudice.


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 17, 2019)

I'm am surprised at how many jumped on Storyteller over this. While there is a lot of pseudoscience around this topic there is also some fascinating fields of study regarding the topic and much we don't yet understand and no doubt much difference of opinion within the "scientific" community about how much of an effect this has on serious medical conditions. Many notable and historical scientific figures (Einstein, Tesla ) etc.. have talked/philosophized about how vibration and frequency seem to be building blocks of our world and universe. It seems to be a code that they would all like to crack, so it isn't all crackpot science (excuse the pun), plus I agree with Quazar that the so called Mainstream, peer reviewed Scientific community is not the only de facto standard for what's real and true.
I think all that Storyteller was trying to point out was that Tuning, Frequency, Vibration (all of it) does have some type of "real" affect on our "being" and the world around us. I'm actually surprised at how many "musician's" would poke fun at that. Of course, I poked fun at some of the things that are clearly ridiculous (such as assuming that one tuning frequency is the end all be all tuning of the universe) but the idea that there is something more to the effects of music on this world than just mere notes on a page I wouldn't dare call ridiculous and I find it all very fascinating. Of course, it is not all synonymous to each person, for example, my son says the rap/trap music he listens to makes him feel better while it makes me feel depressed, so who is right as to how that affects the human soul?

All I'm saying is that it's easy to gang up on one person because it comes across as psuedo-spiritual nonsense and yet most of us have probably not done our due diligence studying this topic. I myself have only spent perhaps a couple weeks looking into it and while I did not agree that the 432HZ tuning was the "magic tuning" of the universe I did find that a lot of the scientific experiments and tests that were purported were truly intriguing and did point to evidence that there was more than meets the eye in the part that frequency and vibration play in our world.

I really don't know enough to say much more than this on the topic but I'll stop now before you all realize how crazy I really am


----------



## tack (Jan 17, 2019)

pderbidge said:


> Many notable and historical scientific figures (Einstein, Tesla ) etc.. have talked/philosophized about how vibration and frequency seem to be building blocks of our world and universe


And Newton was an alchemist. Being brilliant and ground breaking in one area does not a critical thinker make


----------



## OleJoergensen (Jan 17, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> You do realise chiropracty is widely regarded as quackery, right? You may as well be touting endorsement from homeopaths. There is an absolutely appalling drought of critical thinking these days.


Just to be sure I understand- chiropracty is done by a chiropractor?
If that is the case, it is a highly regard and well used treament where I live- Denmark. At the moment I recieve great help by a chiropractor who has a 5 year university education. And it helps me a lot.

Anyway, I find it interesting with different tunings- 432 vs 442 etc. If one is “better” than the other I dont know. As a test if I “downtune” a composition made by using Samples played by Kontakt, will it be the same as if the samples was recorded by instruments tuned in 432 hz......?


----------



## tack (Jan 17, 2019)

One can easily spend 5 years acquiring a degree learning about a shocking amount of bullshit. Imagine doing that, spending tens of thousands of dollars on an education, only to eventually realize you've squandered so much.

Non-specific placebo effects aside, it's not a stretch to imagine there _could_ be some therapeutic value to interventions involving some form of spinal manipulation. Yet chiropractic has a lot of weird magic-thinking and sometimes it really goes off into crazyland.

But that's ok, it seems like everyone's chiropractor is the one guy who's on the level.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 17, 2019)




----------



## dflood (Jan 17, 2019)

KallumS said:


> The argument is that 432hz is the natural frequency of the universe


As is every frequency


----------



## tack (Jan 17, 2019)

DS_Joost said:


> Then again, I was always wary of you when you started selling a Reaper product on the back of other scriptwriters, but I guess business is business.


That's a weird attack. Other scriptwriters like me deliberately choose licenses for their work that explicitly allows this. If we didn't want to allow redistribution, we'd pick a different license. The sort of labor that went into OTR is astounding.


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 17, 2019)

tack said:


> And Newton was an alchemist. Being brilliant and ground breaking in one area does not a critical thinker make



I'm not sure what this means. They WERE "critical thinkers". Were they always right? No. But being right is not a prerequisite for being a "critical thinker" and Scientists still debate the many, many ideas they have put forth in their writings and experiments. They are about as close to being a "critical thinker" as I can think of. This doesn't mean that these ideas always pan out but rather they have provided a stepping stone to proving and disproving theories until hopefully we come to something "provable", until the "provable" becomes disproved again which then brings us back to square one, but the joy is in the journey right? 

But yeah, I'm agreeing that this topic should be moved to the "off topic" sections since this is not really about Sample Libraries.


----------



## dflood (Jan 17, 2019)

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” - Chris Hitchens


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 17, 2019)

tack said:


> Imagine doing that, spending tens of thousands of dollars on an education, only to eventually realize you've squandered so much.



I've spent tens of thousands on sample libraries and found out that I could've spent half if not less for most of what I currently use, however I've also learned a lot about what has worked for me and what hasn't, so in the end it has made me a better musician (at least a midi-musician) so I don't feel it a waste. If I had not taken this journey I would not be at the level I am finally at, which is better than where I used to be.


----------



## MichaelBarry (Jan 17, 2019)

I've learned that professional orchestras will fight over how the oboe 1º tunes. Is it 440 or 441? Literally they have councils on it. Modern instruments are so specifically made now that hopping around is nearly impossible. 

I'm happy to hear the music however best the performers can perform it on.


----------



## Motr3b (Jan 17, 2019)

i can't believe this thread has more comments than "tina guo vol.2" thread. 
83 to 63 at this moment.
we better start a campaign for the 3rd volume i guess...


----------



## Quasar (Jan 17, 2019)

tack said:


> And Newton was an alchemist. Being brilliant and ground breaking in one area does not a critical thinker make


Even elementary particle physics shows us that all matter is contained in what are currently called "fields", which are in constant states of vibration and flux. The famous QM double-slit experiment still lacks an explanation (regardless of whether you subscribe to a Copenhagen, many worlds etc. interpretation) that does not involve the conscious observer influencing the outcome of wave-particle duality. Not to mention E=MC2 (mass/energy equivalence), dark energy in what was once believed to be a vacuum, quantum entanglement (adios spatial locality) etc...

That the building blocks or our universe consist of vibrations and frequencies is not an extraordinary claim but a mundane empirical fact, even from the vantage point of mainstream materialist atheistic physics. On the contrary, to speak of "reality" in terms of how our limited animal brains filter physical data as gleaned from our 5 senses is "crazy-talk".


----------



## Quasar (Jan 17, 2019)

dflood said:


> “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” - Chris Hitchens


Hitchens was a smart, astute sociopolitical observer, but when he delved into the metaphysical he, alas, immediately left his areas of competence.

Whenever one says: "I love you." shall this be dismissed without evidence because the speaker cannot produce evidentiary support for the claim?


----------



## gregh (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Whenever one says: "I love you." shall this be dismissed without evidence because the speaker cannot produce evidentiary support for the claim?



terrible example - when a person makes a claim about their feelings and sensations that is evidentiary support of the highest quality wrt to claims of that sort, eg my foot hurts. Can still be open to error and assessment. Claims about the external world are quite differentsomeone saying they _feel_ the world is organised in a particular way is making one sort of claim, some one saying the world _is _organised in a particular way is making very much a different claim


----------



## Quasar (Jan 17, 2019)

gregh said:


> terrible example - when a person makes a claim about their feelings and sensations that is evidentiary support of the highest quality wrt to claims of that sort, eg my foot hurts. Can still be open to error and assessment. Claims about the external world are quite differentsomeone saying they _feel_ the world is organised in a particular way is making one sort of claim, some one saying the world _is _organised in a particular way is making very much a different claim


Okay. Then IOW the quote isn't very accurate, and it might be better to say: _"Some things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but not other things.", _which doesn't tell us much about anything at all.


----------



## David Cuny (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Whenever one says: "I love you." shall this be dismissed without evidence because the speaker cannot produce evidentiary support for the claim?


Hitchens' quote is basically an inversion of Sagan's _"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."_

These aphorisms doesn't state an absolute truth (_i.e., _counterexamples _can _be found), but _do_ succinctly state a useful guiding principle.


----------



## dflood (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Okay. Then IOW the quote isn't very accurate, and it might be better to say: _"Some things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but not other things.", _which doesn't tell us much about anything at all.



I think the original Hitchens quote works well for all claims, whether physical or metaphysical. His is a more blunt observation flowing from Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The burden of proof rests with the claimant, including the requirement to get anyone to understand or even listen.


----------



## gregh (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Okay. Then IOW the quote isn't very accurate, and it might be better to say: _"Some things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but not other things.", _which doesn't tell us much about anything at all.


Nah that doesnt work either as self report in the case of sensations is the gold standard for evidence.


----------



## Daniel James (Jan 17, 2019)

Lol this will sound like a joke, but I remember hearing about certain old composers and choirs favouring 420hz So every now and then I like to have a good California Cigarette and see what music would have sounded like in the tuning of *enter composer name here* from the past. Its a glorious experience.

-DJ


----------



## tack (Jan 17, 2019)

Quasar said:


> The famous QM double-slit experiment still lacks an explanation (regardless of whether you subscribe to a Copenhagen, many worlds etc. interpretation) that does not involve the conscious observer influencing the outcome of wave-particle duality.


I assume you mean the delayed choice quantum eraser variant? Because the traditional double-slit experiment is compatible with multiple interpretations. Like everyone else who reads about it, my mind was properly blown by the DCQE outcomes. I happen to live a few streets down from the Perimeter Institute, which is pretty cool because they do frequent outreach events, and at one of those events (an excellent series of Science in the Pub events which I desperately wish they'd do again) someone asked about the DCQE and one of the panelists who responded went out of his (or her, I forget) way to mention, even though it wasn't directly posed in the question, that any role of consciousness just isn't discussed in serious QM explanations and that it remains a very fringe position (a la the What The Bleep Do We Know? wackiness). The experiments, crazy as they are, work equally well whether you have a human observer or instrumentation.

But it certainly serves as a bottomless well of material for Deepak Chopra.


----------



## dflood (Jan 17, 2019)

tack said:


> I assume you mean the delayed choice quantum eraser variant? Because the traditional double-slit experiment is compatible with multiple interpretations. Like everyone else who reads about it, my mind was properly blown by the DCQE outcomes. I happen to live a few streets down from the Perimeter Institute, which is pretty cool because they do frequent outreach events, and at one of those events (an excellent series of Science in the Pub events which I desperately wish they'd do again) someone asked about the DCQE and one of the panelists who responded went out of his (or her, I forget) way to mention, even though it wasn't directly posed in the question, that any role of consciousness just isn't discussed in serious QM explanations and that it remains a very fringe position (a la the What The Bleep Do We Know? wackiness). The experiments, crazy as they are, work equally well whether you have a human observer or instrumentation.
> 
> But it certainly serves as a bottomless well of material for Deepak Chopra.


There is a world of difference between the people who study, measure, and observe quantum weirdness, and admit their bafflement, and the people who claim with confidence that they know what is going on.


----------



## Lode_Runner (Jan 18, 2019)

OleJoergensen said:


> Just to be sure I understand- chiropracty is done by a chiropractor?
> If that is the case, it is a highly regard and well used treament where I live- Denmark. At the moment I recieve great help by a chiropractor who has a 5 year university education. And it helps me a lot.





tack said:


> One can easily spend 5 years acquiring a degree learning about a shocking amount of bullshit. Imagine doing that, spending tens of thousands of dollars on an education, only to eventually realize you've squandered so much.
> 
> Non-specific placebo effects aside, it's not a stretch to imagine there _could_ be some therapeutic value to interventions involving some form of spinal manipulation. Yet chiropractic has a lot of weird magic-thinking and sometimes it really goes off into crazyland.
> 
> But that's ok, it seems like everyone's chiropractor is the one guy who's on the level.


Sorry Tack, I live in Australia and my experience with Chiropractors here is the same as that of Ole in Denmark. It is classified as a health profession, requires five years of University Training (degrees are offered by several of Australia's most highly regarded Universities), registration with the Government regulatory body, and ongoing professional development to continue to practice. I have never once encountered a chiropractor trying to tell me Chiropractic is a remedy for cancer, heart disease or diabetes. They have simply focused on getting joints moving, adjusting areas where my spine/skeleton has been out of alignment causing muscles to over compensate which is the cause of my back pain. Nothing more.

I get the impression there is less regulation around Chiropractic practice in the US, which has led to a lot of fraudulent charlatans claiming to be professionals. Unfortunately with the pervasiveness of US film and television in Australia the bad reputation has made some headway here.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Jan 18, 2019)

I dunno about this 432 nonesense, but I'm 100% sure the Earth is flat


----------



## vagar (Jan 18, 2019)

432 is flat too, about 32 cents.

Maybe there is a relation between both issues. After all, everything is connected by energy and vibrations and science doesn't have all the answers, like who will win the Grand National this year, which apparently invalidates completely any effort on trying to make sense of things.


----------



## gregh (Jan 18, 2019)

Lode_Runner said:


> (degrees are offered by several of Australia's most highly regarded Universities).



which Australian Unis? I only see 4 offering and they are pretty low ranking. Physios are well trained - I wouldn't go to a chiropractor for quids


----------



## Lode_Runner (Jan 18, 2019)

gregh said:


> which Australian Unis? I only see 4 offering and they are pretty low ranking. Physios are well trained - I wouldn't go to a chiropractor for quids


Are Macquarie and RMIT low ranking?

Edit - I checked, they sit in equal 13th place, so I was wrong they're not high ranking, more mid ranking. Still respectable enough to not offer degrees in pseudo-science though.

The other two are low ranking, but I'd still be surprised if they offered shonky degrees.

I think a 5 year degree and the requirement of ongoing professional development is very well trained.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 18, 2019)

Saxer said:


> Leave it as it is: orchestra at 443 and clarinets at 432 Hz



Violas at 567kHz, 489, 503, 407, 522, 430,470, 451, 356, 411, 383.......etc.


----------



## gregh (Jan 18, 2019)

Lode_Runner said:


> Are Macquarie and RMIT low ranking?


pretty low yeah - around the 250 mark on overall QS rankings. RMIT I know better and they have some very high quality schools eg Design (who I work with sometimes are ranked #11) - as well as incredibly average ones. I am assuming Chiropractic is in Medicine - well they have a QS rating of 351-400 which is not very good, and the lowest entry was an ATAR of 60 something - which is also pretty bad - my experience of students with even higher ATARs is they will struggle with structured writing and comprehension

look here for rankings https://www.topuniversities.com/


----------



## Lode_Runner (Jan 18, 2019)

60 ATAR at RMIT is surprising. It's 80 at Macquarie Uni.

Edit, sorry Greg, I edited my previous post after the bit you quoted, so you might not have seen the rest, not that I said anything too substantial.


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 18, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Violas at 567kHz, 489, 503, 407, 522, 430,470, 451, 356, 411, 383.......etc.


*"Harpists spend 90 percent of their lives tuning their harps and 10 percent playing out of tune." I. Stravinsky*


----------



## gregh (Jan 18, 2019)

Lode_Runner said:


> 60 ATAR at RMIT is surprising. It's 80 at Macquarie Uni.
> 
> Edit, sorry Greg, I edited my previous post after the bit you quoted, so you might not have seen the rest, not that I said anything too substantial.


I am using world rankings rather than Australian rankings - there is enormous variation in quality between universities and a surprising amount within the unis. I would not trust any Australian university not to offer "shonky" degrees - though it is very hard for an outsider to judge course quality.


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 18, 2019)

Today, I am revealing the truth of Beethoven's birth. Most of the top musicologists I have spoken with agree with all of my claims but are unwilling to admit it in public. 

Larry Nathaniel Jefferson (Beethoven) was the first child of Thomas and Martha Jefferson. The birth was not recorded because it predated the marriage by two years. Larry happily lived his first fourteen years at Monticello in Virginia. Encouraged by his musical polymath father, Larry studied violin, piano, and composition under the tutelage of Italian musical genius Francis Alberti from the age of three. 

In 1784, Jefferson was appointed Minister to France by the Congress of the Confederation. That same year, Martha died. While living in France, Thomas and Larry were often called upon by Charles Gravier, Count of Vergennes. The count had previously been the French ambassador to the Electorate of Trier (Germany). During that time and because of his gambling habits, Gravier ran up tens of thousands of Francs in debt. To pay off these debts, at the request of his debt-holder Prince Clemens Wenceslaus of Saxony, Gravier kidnapped young Larry, delivering him to Germany in 1785 to become the childless prince's successor. Soon thereafter, the prince's fortunes turned and he abandon Larry to an obscure court singer, Johann Beethoven of Bonn. In exchange, the Beethoven family was allowed to add "van" to their name which implied a royal connection by birth.

If you are interested in the rest of the real story of Beethoven (his hidden 12-tone compositions and his invention of the steam driven synthesizer), please send money and flattering comments then subscribe to my channel "They Won't Tell You, But I Will !!!"


----------



## Pantonal (Jan 18, 2019)

To reiterate the original topic 432 Hz vs. 440 Hz, I agree with most here that the frequency of A is irrelevant. Orchestras have trended to raising their pitch to sound brighter and more intense. Thus reducing pitch would make an orchestra sound darker and more relaxed. Orchestras don't want to sound darker or more relaxed so they trend higher. Those who wish to use music as a meditation aid like darker and more relaxed so they make up stories to pitch to their audience about ancient wisdom and universal frequencies as a competitive advantage. 

What could make a big difference is intonation. Just intonation looks better on an oscilloscope than equal temperament. Sadly, it limits harmonic freedom, which has me wondering about variable just intonation. That would be some way to vary just intonation to match the tonal center of music at that moment on an ongoing basis. Choirs do this to some degree naturally, but it's more difficult with real instruments (strings would have the easiest time of it, except for the open strings). Has anyone invented a methodology to adjust intonation of virtual instruments toward just intonation depending on the tonal center of music in real time?


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig (Jan 18, 2019)

That does indeed exist. Look up "hermode tuning". I believe that at the moment only Cubase supports it.


----------



## Quasar (Jan 18, 2019)

tack said:


> I assume you mean the delayed choice quantum eraser variant? Because the traditional double-slit experiment is compatible with multiple interpretations. Like everyone else who reads about it, my mind was properly blown by the DCQE outcomes. I happen to live a few streets down from the Perimeter Institute, which is pretty cool because they do frequent outreach events, and at one of those events (an excellent series of Science in the Pub events which I desperately wish they'd do again) someone asked about the DCQE and one of the panelists who responded went out of his (or her, I forget) way to mention, even though it wasn't directly posed in the question, that any role of consciousness just isn't discussed in serious QM explanations and that it remains a very fringe position (a la the What The Bleep Do We Know? wackiness). The experiments, crazy as they are, work equally well whether you have a human observer or instrumentation.
> 
> But it certainly serves as a bottomless well of material for Deepak Chopra.


Yeah, quantum eraser, subsequent delayed choice quantum eraser... by now there have been a ton of variants. I get that the primacy of consciousness as the determining factor in the perceived outcomes is considered to be a "fringe" position, but this can only be attributed to a prejudicial, materialistic worldview on the part of those who dismiss it.

I'm not sure what you mean by evoking a difference between "a human observer or instrumentation" since - regardless of how the apparatus is set up - no information exists until such time as it does, which by definition means when an outcome becomes available to be read by a human observer. Adding instrumentation in such a way as to reveal apparent retro-causality etc. only moves the finish line.


----------



## alanb (Jan 18, 2019)

Rasmus Hartvig said:


> That does indeed exist. Look up "hermode tuning". I believe that at the moment only Cubase supports it.


----------



## tack (Jan 18, 2019)

Quasar said:


> I get that the primacy of consciousness as the determining factor in the perceived outcomes is considered to be a "fringe" position, but this can only be attributed to a prejudicial, materialistic worldview on the part of those who dismiss it


Or the lack of evidence.


----------



## Pantonal (Jan 18, 2019)

alanb said:


>



That looks pretty cool. You don't really notice a big difference until he plays the two parts at the same time, that was awful. Sadly, I'm on Logic (have been for about 3 decades). I wonder if this is something that's even on Apple's radar.


----------



## Quasar (Jan 18, 2019)

tack said:


> Or the lack of evidence.


Really? ALL of the empiric evidence suggests that the elementary building blocks of matter simply do not exist except superpositionally in a probabilistic distribution of possible states UNTIL conscious observation intervenes, and that the presence of discrete physical objects says more about the kinds of perceptual creatures we are than it does about the nature of physicality itself.


----------



## Pantonal (Jan 18, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Really? ALL of the empiric evidence suggests that the elementary building blocks of matter simply do not exist except superpositionally in a probabilistic distribution of possible states UNTIL conscious observation intervenes, and that the presence of discrete physical objects says more about the kinds of perceptual creatures we are than it does about the nature of physicality itself.


There was an interesting article in the December 2018 Scientific American (magazine) about Spooky Action that indicated quantum entanglement has been confirmed. However, what that means is still unclear. It doesn't necessarily mean that all states exist simultaneously until observed. The article concentrated on quantum entanglement of electrons and that certainly can then be construed to effect larger matter (people, things). Quantum anything is the science of the very small which by definition would not include the minds of people.


----------



## tack (Jan 18, 2019)

Quasar said:


> ALL of the empiric evidence suggests that the elementary building blocks of matter simply do not exist except superpositionally in a probabilistic distribution of possible states UNTIL conscious observation intervenes


Here's what I know:

QM is deeply unintuitive and mysterious and confusing to our lizard brains.
To the people who actually do this for a living, explanations involving consciousness aren't taken seriously except for a fringe minority.
The counterintuitive nature of QM is brutally abused charlatans to perpetuate unsupportable pseudoscientific claims.
Given I don't understand the math involved (despite having taken about 80% of the classes needed for an honors B.Sc in math -- by now mostly forgotten, sigh) the only rational thing to do is defer to theoretical and experimental physicists who are actually producing results.
Having talked to several of those (both from PI and physicists I happen to work with), they variously balked at or mocked any role of consciousness in QM.


----------



## Quasar (Jan 18, 2019)

tack said:


> Here's what I know:
> 
> QM is deeply unintuitive and mysterious and confusing to our lizard brains.
> To the people who actually do this for a living, explanations involving consciousness aren't taken seriously except for a fringe minority.
> ...


What you've described here is a vague belief system based on ad hominem impressions and underscored by an article of faith that the scientific method is the only or best epistemological vehicle by which the nature of reality can be understood. 

You are, or course, entirely free to think this if you want to. Since your subjective "take" on this is by far the most prevalent worldview among educated citizens of the developed world today, particularly in the academy, you'll get a lot of support and confirmation for your position. That it is spectacularly wrong is something you can and will learn on another day... 

In short form: We are not physical beings attempting to understand the greater cosmos. Rather, we are spiritual beings attempting to understand what it means to have a physical, human experience during the very short period of time we are incarnated here. Consciousness comes from God, is God, and is everywhere, and we are all an eternal part of that.

...And at any rate, much greater minds than ours (or at least mine) have been vigorously debating the core issue for centuries, as the QM data aspect really amounts to nothing more than another variation on the very old mind/brain relationship problem, and we're certainly not going to solve _that_ to everyone's satisfaction on these boards.


----------



## tack (Jan 18, 2019)

Quasar said:


> That it is spectacularly wrong is something you can and will learn on another day...


This is a level of smugness that I just have no response to.


----------



## vagar (Jan 18, 2019)

In the meantime, Enlightment and the scientific method have provided our spiritual beings with a vital stay on this plane much more comfortable, secure and richer in opportunities and experiences than any religious teachings in the past. On average, and not without bumps, but still. Go Romans!


----------



## gregh (Jan 18, 2019)

"with our thoughts we make the world" - joke Buddhism from an old TV show. In the actual world, here is an amazing achievement of science - the collective effort of millions of people over thousands of years, leading to understanding something like this .... how fever helps the immune system

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41...ail&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-251170c58f-43504301


----------



## VinRice (Jan 22, 2019)

It's truly depressing to see people constructing vast edifices of mumbo-jumbo as the result of a simple misunderstanding of basic scientific terms and the unwillingness to accept our complete insignificance in an awesome but uncaring universe.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 23, 2019)

I've been back and forth on the issue. In reviewing the "science" of 432 vs. 440 or 442 tuning all I can add is from practical experience. In America I've gotten use to 440. It's boring. When I played in Europe we played at 442 or even 443 it was new and more exciting. 

I've never played in 432 but I like the sound. It's somehow pleasing and more exciting to my ears than 440. 

So I've concluded that it's subjective. I half expect that if I had gotten use to 432 and then played in 440 I would think that 440 was new and exciting. The fact that I grew up playing in bands and orchestras in America and have the A 440 of every damn oboe constantly in my ear for years now, makes 440 just commonplace. So every once in a while I just find a 432 performance and just sit back and enjoy something new:


----------



## storyteller (Feb 13, 2019)

When I originally posted my first comments in this thread, I really wanted to share more about what I was working on - however I was in the process of re-launching a website for this project I want to share with you today, revising 3 other websites regarding this same project, while knee deep in updating two apps for iOS (releasing in the next 45 days), and finalizing the creation of a new Kontakt instrument that specifically dealt with the subject of my response to 432hz in this thread. And honestly I'd call this a side project compared to everything I am working on presently.

In short, I want to refer you to this thread I just posted in the announcements section regarding my new Kontakt Instrument (Sonalkiss | Primordial Sounds of Creation). It is a 260 GB beauty of an instrument for the largest version of the release, 67 GB for the smallest version.... at the wonderfully affordable price of "Name Your Price." Seriously.  (The download is small though... only 100mb max!)

This instrument deals with these very same philosophical & esoteric principles mentioned in this thread. It is an instrument geared toward meditation, brain wave entrainment, and bio-geometric manipulation. Yes, it is all very real stuff.

I also want to provide a link to a 20 page document of supplemental reading I wrote that condenses down information regarding solfeggio tones and binaural frequencies. Of course you can always read the full books I've written on these topics as well. But for now, here are the short versions and freely available guides...

The full manual for the Kontakt Instrument is available *HERE*

Download the 20 page* Sonalkiss Supplemental Guide for Solfeggio Tones and Binaural Beats HERE*
Download a tertiary reading guide by GW Hardin (I stumbled across this years ago) called* Ascension Frequencies HERE*
Checkout the Sonalkiss.me website (part of the Storyteller.IM family)
I hope you enjoy the reads and the new Kontakt Instrument! These are principles every musician should seek to understand as these concepts form the fundamental principles to things like _why_ suspended chords feel the way they do, _why_ major seventh chords have that magical feel, etc. But it is so much more... Truly I hope those that seek to understand these principles fully understand the gravity of what is discussed in them.

-Jonathan


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 13, 2019)

storyteller said:


> When I originally posted my first comments in this thread, I really wanted to share more about what I was working on - however I was in the process of re-launching a website for this project I want to share with you today, revising 3 other websites regarding this same project, while knee deep in updating two apps for iOS (releasing in the next 45 days), and finalizing the creation of a new Kontakt instrument that specifically dealt with the subject of my response to 432hz in this thread. And honestly I'd call this a side project compared to everything I am working on presently.
> 
> In short, I want to refer you to this thread I just posted in the announcements section regarding my new Kontakt Instrument (Sonalkiss | Primordial Sounds of Creation). It is a 260 GB beauty of an instrument for the largest version of the release, 67 GB for the smallest version.... at the wonderfully affordable price of "Name Your Price." Seriously.  (The download is small though... only 100mb max!)
> 
> ...



Fascinating, lots of reading to do, thanks for the video too. Watching it and will follow the conversation.

Andre


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 14, 2019)

Pantonal said:


> What could make a big difference is intonation. Just intonation looks better on an oscilloscope than equal temperament. Sadly, it limits harmonic freedom, which has me wondering about variable just intonation. That would be some way to vary just intonation to match the tonal center of music at that moment on an ongoing basis. Choirs do this to some degree naturally, but it's more difficult with real instruments (strings would have the easiest time of it, except for the open strings). Has anyone invented a methodology to adjust intonation of virtual instruments toward just intonation depending on the tonal center of music in real time?



"Toward just intonation" (adaptive tuning) is still not pure harmony. Indian raga music has meditative and sensual quality, because it's usually tuned to just intonation. 
Western music is not composed anywhere near close to just intonation (there are many small enharmonic intervals that simply don't exist in mainstream music theory) and should not be performed in just intonation unless you want to deal with (recompose the piece) small enharmonics - like 20 cents up or down.

Standard music theory and notation is based on meantone temperaments  -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantone_temperament 

That's what great Western composers from the past were using. But to access more distant keys on the circle of fifths you need an instrument with more than 12 keys per octave which is problematic with commercial piano designs (that's why you won't encounter Cmaj->F#maj or similar chord changes in old classical music ((unless they were intended for organs or harpischords with split keys)), it would be simply out of tune). That's why isomorphic keyboard designs are probably the future (even 12ET music will be easier to perform on such instruments - unless it's based on chromatic runs, then it will be harder, but chromatic runs are hardly real music, more like a sound effect, so noone cares). 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphic_keyboard


----------



## Fredeke (Feb 14, 2019)

I don't know whether I beleive in the magical powers of 432Hz. I would tend not to, but I'd like to keep an open mind.

What I have a really hard time beleiving in though, are the conspiracies aimed at taking 432 away from us. 
I've seriously read stuff like that, but it's too farfetched for me.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Feb 14, 2019)

Oh gee, this thread is depressing AF. It is mind-boggling that some members of our species are capable of doing science on the level it's at - while the vast majority is completely clueless about the very basics. The inequality is at record highs, definetely!

Any type of number- and frequency-magic forgets about the entirely arbitrary nature of the underlying units of measurement. It is _completely _arbitrary that an hour has 60 minutes (and not, say, 100). It is completely arbitrary that a minute has 60 seconds. The numerical value you get for frequencies measured in Hz (i.e. oscillations per second) is, therefore, completely arbitrary, too! And no, electromagnetic waves are *not *vibrations. Not every type of oscillation is a sound, and suggesting any sort of underlying connection there happens only for the sake of attaching emotionally charged concepts to otherwise very sober scientific phenomena. Please - stay sober! (No one is in possession of some secret truth. There is none. Go home.)


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 14, 2019)

rottoy said:


> Typical guitarist, solving tuning issues by playing a different tune altogether from the rest of the band.
> "You're playing Back in Black? I was playing Take Five!"



Wait, *I'm* the guitarist, and I thought we were playing jazz!


----------



## Fredeke (Feb 14, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> And no, electromagnetic waves are *not *vibrations. Not every type of oscillation is a sound, and suggesting any sort of underlying connection there happens only for the sake of attaching emotionally charged concepts to otherwise very sober scientific phenomena. Please - stay sober!


No, they're not. And yes, please do.
+1


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 14, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> Oh gee, this thread is depressing AF. It is mind-boggling that some members of our species are capable of doing science on the level it's at - while the vast majority is completely clueless about the very basics. The inequality is at record highs, definetely!
> 
> Any type of number- and frequency-magic forgets about the entirely arbitrary nature of the underlying units of measurement. It is _completely _arbitrary that an hour has 60 minutes (and not, say, 100). It is completely arbitrary that a minute has 60 seconds. The numerical value you get for frequencies measured in Hz (i.e. oscillations per second) is, therefore, completely arbitrary, too! And no, electromagnetic waves are *not *vibrations. Not every type of oscillation is a sound, and suggesting any sort of underlying connection there happens only for the sake of attaching emotionally charged concepts to otherwise very sober scientific phenomena. Please - stay sober! (No one is in possession of some secret truth. There is none. Go home.)



"Electromagnetic waves are not vibrations of material, but are vibrations of pure energy."
*"Electromagnetic waves* are created by the *vibration* of an electric charge. This *vibration* creates a *wave* which has both an electric and a *magnetic* component."
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.cfm

"Electromagnetic waves differ from mechanical waves in that they do not require a medium to propagate. This means that electromagnetic waves can travel not only through air and solid materials, but also through the vacuum of space."
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy

Heinrich Hertz, a German physicist, applied Maxwell's theories to the production and reception of radio waves. The unit of frequency of a radio wave -- one cycle per second -- is named the hertz, in honor of Heinrich Hertz.

"His experiment with radio waves solved two problems. First, he had demonstrated in the concrete, what Maxwell had only theorized — that the velocity of radio waves was equal to the velocity of light! This proved that radio waves were a form of light! Second, Hertz found out how to make the electric and magnetic fields detach themselves from wires and go free as Maxwell's waves — electromagnetic waves."
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy

I don't know much yet about the Kontakt library just released by our friend the OP. I'm trying to gain understanding enough to come to a decision as to its practicality. Using music for well-being, inner disposition, even in settings of spirituality, has been a passion of mine for decades. I've seen it used as a powerful companion to regular medical treatments.

So while traditional science continues to invest heavily in chemical and technological treatments, other people are exploring alternate means, and some using binaural beats, on which there has been research going back decades (I became aware of it during the 1980s). As a piano tuner for many years, I've been exposed to binaural beats by default it seems, and I didn't even know it.

Anyway, to label the OP's research and findings as "magic that doesn't exist" still doesn't destroy the records and advancement of knowledge in terms of the "secrets" of the universe. Researchers (scientists) are often considered quacks, challenging popular or official thinking of their time, or pursuing fields of research that seem futile. But they have vision and focus, and are mostly impeded by budgets, or empirical data, not ridicule (maybe some should, I agree, but not all).

Is this thread "depressing AF?" Not to me. I'm definitely curious about the power and energy of sound, and its effects on the human body and psyche. I would assume movie score composers and music producers for the silver screen and videos, would also be interested in the matter to a large degree, as they create, configure, music to trigger and mirror human emotions on cue. What else could they do?

As Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: _I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being._

About staying sober, I concur. By all means! Here's further *"sobering" *info I encountered doing a Google search:





https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/oct/31/ultrasound-cancer-research-hifu-bone-trial


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 14, 2019)

Why is every piece of literature in this subject written like a pamphlet for a low-budget cult? I feel like I'm being manipulated from the first sentence.

I'm more than willing to look at evidence -this industry is competitive, and if there's a magic bullet that'll make my audience cry faster than my competition, I'll take it. But scientific rigor exists for a reason. There is room for unconventional claims, but the burden of proof falls on those making them. If the proof is found to be unconvincing, you can hardly blame the status quo for that.

I really, genuinely want to see unbiased experiments that don't reference the heartbeat of the universe, cite numerology, or advertise a product. Good science doesn't say "It's real folks! Trust me!" It proposes a question, conducts an experiment to find an answer, and then provides exact and honest details so that others may do the same. Anything else may make for an interesting read (possibly even sparking further investigation), but is ultimately a work of fiction.

There's a great deal that we as a species don't understand, but I don't believe accepting the unproven is the solution to that.


----------



## DS_Joost (Feb 14, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> Why is every piece of literature in this subject written like a pamphlet for a low-budget cult? I feel like I'm being manipulated from the first sentence.
> 
> I'm more than willing to look at evidence -this industry is competitive, and if there's a magic bullet that'll make my audience cry faster than my competition, I'll take it. But scientific rigor exists for a reason. There is room for unconventional claims, but the burden of proof falls on those making them. If the proof is found to be unconvincing, you can hardly blame the status quo for that.
> 
> ...



Indeed. I do not just find people making such claims swindlers, I also find them highly unrespectful of other's intelligence. It is nothing but pushing back against those that are trying to make real progress all because people can't distinguish emotion from fact. It's the easy way out, and a detriment to those who have actually put in work to try and understand the universe.

If you know you can't prove anything without selling a product, or having people blindly trust you, then just stop it. For real. Just stop.


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 14, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> I'm more than willing to look at evidence -this industry is competitive, and if there's a magic bullet that'll make my audience cry faster than my competition, I'll take it. But scientific rigor exists for a reason. There is room for unconventional claims, but the burden of proof falls on those making them. If the proof is found to be unconvincing, you can hardly blame the status quo for that.



1- You really believe it's about making people cry faster??

2- Proofs have to be examined, understood, tested against our knowledge and that of others, but it takes work, and time, and not many people are willing to go beyond the headlines. 



averystemmler said:


> I really, genuinely want to see unbiased experiments that don't reference the heartbeat of the universe, cite numerology, or advertise a product.



3- I haven't read anything about the heartbeat of the universe, and I don't consider numerology to be even remotely interestingly realistic. It's quack to me. 

As for _selling a product_, it is hardly a reason to refuse to consider the theories behind the product. But even so, if you read the post he has been developing an app that he gives away for free. 

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/solfeggio-by-sonalkiss/id582049592?mt=8

I think he deserves more credit than being dismissed off-hand as a fraud, and neither do the scientific theories and research behind his project. If you watch some of the TedTalk videos, you get a sense that this has become a serious field of research by serious professionals and scientists. 

If you think about application for a movie composer, this could be a bit an off-road Kontakt library, but imho a fascinating one. What will people do with it? I'm eager to find out. 

Cheers,

Andre


----------



## Quasar (Feb 14, 2019)

VinRice said:


> It's truly depressing to see people constructing vast edifices of mumbo-jumbo as the result of a simple misunderstanding of basic scientific terms and the unwillingness to accept our complete insignificance in an awesome but uncaring universe.


A statement such as: _unwillingness to accept our complete insignificance in an awesome but uncaring universe_ is itself nothing but an entirely subjective, arbitrary metaphysical assertion, however popular it may in the developed world today. In other words it's its own vast edifice of mumbo-jumbo. 

The first problem with so-called scientific materialism is the gratuitious & generally unacknowledged conflation of science and philosophy. If you stop and think about it, it should be obvious that empiricism is _ontologically independent_. You can run a series of empirical tests from a subject/object perspective and derive reliable, repeatable results about how x _behaves _mechanistically in a relational way, but this will not - not even in principle - ever inform you about what x _is_...


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 14, 2019)

Quasar said:


> A statement such as: _unwillingness to accept our complete insignificance in an awesome but uncaring universe_ is itself nothing but an entirely subjective, arbitrary metaphysical assertion, however popular it may in the developed world today. In other words it's its own vast edifice of mumbo-jumbo.
> 
> The first problem with so-called scientific materialism is the gratuitious & generally unacknowledged conflation of science and philosophy. If you stop and think about it, it should be obvious that empiricism is _ontologically independent_. You can run a series of empirical tests from a subject/object perspective and derive reliable, repeatable results about how x _behaves _mechanistically in a relational way, but this will not - not even in principle - ever inform you about what x _is_...



Well said. And yet, we can experience _x_ without "understanding" its intrinsic nature, or being able to form a scientific axiom about it, or "proof." It's like trying to scientifically determine the relational commitment ratio of two people kissing, or determine the authenticity of one kiss in time, based on empirical data. In my opinion, anyway. There are limitations to the scientific method.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 14, 2019)

Even if there was something magical about base frequency, the right frequency should have been 426. (666666) Hz, because that is A in just intonation. The difference between A tuned as 5/3 (way more consonant interval) and A tuned as 27/16 (432 hz ) is 81/80 - enharmonic tempered in any meantone system (like 12 , 19, 31 ET and others useful for Western music; in 34, 41, 53 and other accurate ET - closer to just intonation - there is a difference between these and we have two "D" and "A" in the major scale which makes standard progressions to modulate a comma up or down or involve enharmonic changes; my theory is that people in Asia never developed harmony system, because of such complexities ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 14, 2019)

creativeforge said:


> 1- You really believe it's about making people cry faster??



It's something I've been asked to do, yes.




creativeforge said:


> 2- Proofs have to be examined, understood, tested against our knowledge and that of others, but it takes work, and time, and not many people are willing to go beyond the headlines



Yes they do, I agree. And until they are examined, understood, and tested against existing knowledge, it is reckless to use them to support an argument.



creativeforge said:


> If you watch some of the TedTalk videos, you get a sense that this has become a serious field of research by serious professionals and scientists



Propagating waves through tissue is not what we're talking about. The effects of resonance on solid matter is not controversial at all. The effects of acoustic vibration on the electrochemical signals in the brain is much more complicated.




creativeforge said:


> I think he deserves more credit than being dismissed off-hand as a fraud,



I deliberately avoided calling anyone in particular a fraud, but rather objected to the use of their writing as evidence. They may well be offering a valuable product (for free, even), but the manual for said product is not a reliable source of information.

The same applies to the other sources linked (those that I've read, anyways - I haven't combed the entire thread yet). They are written to convince.




creativeforge said:


> If you think about application for a movie composer, this could be a bit an off-road Kontakt library, but imho a fascinating one. What will people do with it? I'm eager to find out



Hell, I'll try anything once!


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 14, 2019)

Some thoughts from my perspective:

I have heavily been relying on the help of Chiropractors since 30+ years, just today again. Since I like facts and experiences, I like that too. However one has to find a good one.
Anton Zeilinger, when being asked "whether our consciusness creates the reality that we perceive", says:
"I would be very, very cautious there. However it obviously is the case that we don't just play a passive role in the world. That is something I would subscribe to, and it is a new insight coming from Quantum Physics. However, in exact detail, how far this goes etc., this is something we still have to think about." (1) If you ask who Anton Zeilinger is, google Quantum Teleportation.

Yes, frequencies. Amazing how little thought is often given to them by people who make a living by using them. Including myself.

All that being said, I personally can not find 432 music overly attractive. Maybe a matter of habit.
(1) Source: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger


----------



## Quasar (Feb 14, 2019)

creativeforge said:


> Well said. And yet, we can experience _x_ without "understanding" its intrinsic nature, or being able to form a scientific axiom about it, or "proof." It's like trying to scientifically determine the relational commitment ratio of two people kissing, or determine the authenticity of one kiss in time, based on empirical data. In my opinion, anyway. There are limitations to the scientific method.



Yep. The scientific method cannot account for the qualities of our experience. It can only deal in the behavior of abstract quantitative phenomena extrinsic to ourselves. Because of science's remarkable achievements in the areas of medicine, technology etc., it has become the norm in the West (arguably since the Enlightenment, but especially in the last 200 years) to presume that it also offers an authentic ontological framework for understanding reality, which it does not. The qualities of our mentation: our thoughts, emotions, dreams, imagination, sensory perceptions etc. are, axiomatically, all that we can ever know.

At the absurd materialistic extreme, "renowned" cognitive scientists such as Daniel Dennett even go so far as to say that consciousness is an illusion generated by neurotransmitters in the physical brain, which of course begs the question of why we should listen to him, since from his POV the person making this foolish claim doesn't even exist.

This isn't just academic. It's a terribly important issue. The ascendancy of a fundamentally fallacious materialist worldview has reduced the richness of human experience to abstract, mechanistically observable properties, served to invalidate our interior recognition of the beautiful, the spiritual, the supernatural et al, and has induced an existential "crisis of meaning" or soul sickness in modern society. Nihilism (though it's usually not called that) permeates through much or our collective awareness and continues to grow. You can see the destructive consequences of this everywhere you look.


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 14, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Yep. The scientific method cannot account for the qualities of our experience. It can only deal in the behavior of abstract quantitative phenomena extrinsic to ourselves. Because of science's remarkable achievements in the areas of medicine, technology etc., it has become the norm in the West (arguably since the Enlightenment, but especially in the last 200 years) to presume that it also offers an authentic ontological framework for understanding reality, which it does not. The qualities of our mentation: our thoughts, emotions, dreams, imagination, sensory perceptions etc. are, axiomatically, all that we can ever know.
> 
> At the absurd materialistic extreme, "renowned" cognitive scientists such as Daniel Dennett even go so far as to say that consciousness is an illusion generated by neurotransmitters in the physical brain, which of course begs the question of why we should listen to him, since from his POV the person making this foolish claim doesn't even exist.
> 
> This isn't just academic. It's a terribly important issue. The ascendancy of a fundamentally fallacious materialist worldview has reduced the richness of human experience to abstract, mechanistically observable properties, served to invalidate our interior recognition of the beautiful, the spiritual, the supernatural et al, and has induced an existential "crisis of meaning" or soul sickness in modern society. Nihilism (though it's usually not called that) permeates through much or our collective awareness and continues to grow. You can see the destructive consequences of this everywhere you look.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 14, 2019)

Your cartoon is self-referential, begging the question by using the epistemological approach of the scientific method as the means of determining the validity of the scientific method. Scientists are constantly doing this, saying in a myriad of ways that science is ultimate truth because the science tells us that it is. Logical fallacy 101.

But speaking of citations, I would ask you to cite one empirical study that answers the questions: "Who are we and why are we here?" Or one empirical discovery that explains the subjective experience of seeing red, falling in love or feeling afraid. The neuroscientists might say that they can see which neurosynaptic activities are being triggered in the brain when we experience those things, but this doesn't tell us what it means to see that.

Saying that we have uncovered the outline of the fundamental particles that make up the physical universe (or 4% of it anyway LOL) and we call it The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a scientific statement, which is fine. But any assignation of fundamental meaning to this discovery is no longer science. It's ontology, teleology or metaphysics, subjects which simply lie outside of the scientific arena.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 14, 2019)

Hannes_F said:


> Some thoughts from my perspective:
> 
> I have heavily been relying on the help of Chiropractors since 30+ years, just today again...





Health care is one area where materialist reductionism has destructively stripped nature of some of the degrees of freedom it might otherwise enjoy in our collective worldview. If we assume a materialist ontology, then, for example, of course meditation cannot help shrink a brain tumor. This is "magical thinking mumbo-jumbo", period. But if we assume a consciousness-based ontology, it does nothing to diminish current empirical medical practice, but it also opens doors to other methods that _might_ (and anecdotally sometimes do) shrink a tumor, such as meditation, positive thinking, creative visualization, love, prayer etc., all of which science gratuitously dismisses as nonsense despite the fact that these things have always been a natural part of the human experience.

The QM stuff is a whole other can of worms...


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 14, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Your cartoon is self-referential, begging the question by using the epistemological approach of the scientific method as the means of determining the validity of the scientific method. Scientists are constantly doing this, saying in a myriad of ways that science is ultimate truth because the science tells us that it is. Logical fallacy 101.
> 
> But speaking of citations, I would ask you to cite one empirical study that answers the questions: "Who are we and why are we here?" Or one empirical discovery that explains the subjective experience of seeing red, falling in love or feeling afraid. The neuroscientists might say that they can see which neurosynaptic activities are being triggered in the brain when we experience those things, but this doesn't tell us what it means to see that.
> 
> Saying that we have uncovered the outline of the fundamental particles that make up the physical universe (or 4% of it anyway LOL) and we call it The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a scientific statement, which is fine. But any assignation of fundamental meaning to this discovery is no longer science. It's ontology, teleology or metaphysics, subjects which simply lie outside of the scientific arena.



Okay, but follow your thread to its own logical conclusion too.

Our senses do not correspond to reality. I agree. In my thinking, they give us the picture of reality best as evolved for our survival, which may or may not reflect the true nature of things. If "truth" is a valid notion to begin with. But that's neither here nor there.

So our logic, based around the three dimensions and linear time as we perceive them, is flawed. But we used that logic to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, all we have is this same logic that we use for science, and you can't use logic to refute logic. It's illogical. 

So, invoking our imperfect logic is the nuclear option in any sane conversation, and you've used it repeatedly throughout this thread. It implodes on itself and certainly doesn't show whether or not 432Hz will save the world.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 14, 2019)

Quasar said:


> all of which science gratuitously dismisses as nonsense



Completely untrue.


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 14, 2019)

The evolution of the perception and application of *magic. *






Little does he know you can have access to multiple libraries and museums around the world and see your house from space using the new versions of these.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 14, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> Okay, but follow your thread to its own logical conclusion too.
> 
> Our senses do not correspond to reality. I agree. In my thinking, they give us the picture of reality best as evolved for our survival, which may or may not reflect the true nature of things. If "truth" is a valid notion to begin with. But that's neither here nor there.
> 
> ...


I agree entirely that our perceptual field - what we absorb via the 5 senses - has probably evolved to enable survival as opposed to enable thinking about ultimate truth. And I don't think we disagree about logic in any significant way, at least insofar as we can agree on the same formal axioms on which logic is based, although I do not think it is flawed. I think it's really good at what it does, just as I think empirical inquiry is good at what it does.

But any applied logic is only as good as its a priori assumptions, and any ontology requires that _something_ be a priori or fundamental, true in a way that is not contingent on its relationship to something else. So the question becomes: What is the most logical, empirically self-evident and parsimonious starting point? To the materialist, this fundament is found in extrinsic, abstract quantities that exist as distinct phenomena apart from the conscious experiencer. As such, truth is somehow separate from us, "out there", and impersonal. Such truth is ultimately devoid of purpose because you cannot derive the sublimity and variety of interior, subjective experience by analyzing external, impersonal abstractions from a 2nd-person perspective. You just can't. Yet at the end of the day conscious experience is all that we have. The appearance of the world, of spacetime and the rest of it only exist for us as aspects or models of behavior within the field of our conscious experience.

Most people in most times and places have understood this & taken it for granted. The Post-Enlightenment developed world we live in today is an anomaly, an ontological dark age. (Oppressive, ossified institutional Medieval religion shares in the blame too, but that's another subject.) Science, due to its great successes, became pathologically over-infatuated with its own methodology. and even as we lost the critical ability to understand mythos while maintaining intellectual honesty, we began to suffer from the collective delusion that gaining mastery of the ability to manipulate certain mechanistic processes somehow, magically, also conferred a superior understanding of what we were doing and why, an understanding that formerly and properly belonged to the provinces of philosophy, intuition, myth, divine revelation and religion. In short, we mistook information for knowledge, and knowledge for wisdom. We need to somehow reconcile our _profound_ ignorance with an infusion of higher consciousness before we annihilate ourselves, and we're running out of time.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 14, 2019)

I think it might help to imagine a circle where the center point is absolute Truth, Love, and the knowledge we seek to answer these existential questions - one infinite source of abundance. Now imagine this circle is divided up into various pie slices. These represent ways that humans have learned to discern Truth, Light. One pie slice might represent math. Adjacent to math might be physics (e.g. something closely related). The next slice might be biology. Further along the circle (e.g. pie chart) you might have more esoteric areas such as meditation, yoga, martial arts, dancing, music, metaphysics, astrology, numerology, etc. Perhaps there is a linguistics pie slice. Use your imagination.

Now, imagine that you are an individual standing on the outside of this circle in front of these pie slices. Perhaps you are standing in front of a Chemistry pie slice. Every pie slice represents the path toward this Oneness, Truth, Love. You may be able to navigate through a good portion of this pie slice which will help you fully understand the journey. Your ego will tell you that you know "so much!" You don't. No one does. But you may know more _relative _to another in this particular moment, or this particular slice of pie. And *RELATIVITY* is t_he most important_ term here. See Einstein.

Now, perhaps you are a smart person. You decide to walk around the circle and pop a glance and see what else is out there. You realize there are some other paths to this center point that seem closely related. You study physics. You go as far as you can. You back up and walk to another pie slice. Acupuncture? Meridians? What? This doesn't make sense. You've ventured so far away from what you know that this seems absurd. Your ego kicks in. "How far am I going to journey around the circle to reach the center? That is illogical." your ego says. But it isn't really.

Cognitive dissonance is suddenly very real. It doesn't make sense you have to walk around the whole pie to be able to get to the center. You walk back to where you began. Suddenly you realize that something you saw during your journey around this circle has opened up a new idea - a theory! You dive deeper into the pie slice(s) you are most comfortable with and now you can see more that you ever could. Your ego says, "I've done it! I'm there!"

You're not. But you are most certainly further than you were. This is a great achievement! So you share this knowledge.

Now during this time, every other human is standing around this same circle digging into various pie slices that make sense to their interpretation of this reality. Yes. They all lead to the same place. Some are more organized. Some are wildly chaotic with patterns that only certain minds will catch. But that is why they are there. Everyone is unique. Everyone has a unique perspective into this center point. It is quite literally a circle sliced into infinite slices. But your brain will try to put a limit on the number of slices because it thinks there has to be a limit. That's silly though. If there were limits to All That Is, nothing would ever Be. Plain and simple. But you return to this third-dimensional perspective because that existential thought is a bit too much to process in the moment. That's okay. You've now placed some artificial limits on something creating a type of self-fulfilling prophecy for proving things only against things that have been proven. Whoops! That's a trap, but the alternative seems scary. So your perspective is somewhat like a boat listing to one side, unable to right the ship.

Now ideally, you would venture around the whole circle and learn as much as you can but now your boat is listing and has a now limited mode of travel. This is when most people say, "This doesn't make sense! Conspiracy theories! Snake Oil! They're all *crazy* because my pie slice is the best!"

But they're not crazy. No more than you are. You think your boat is sailing upright. It isn't. They see through different eyes. Some may see what you see too. Perhaps others dismiss what you see as truth. Why so? Well, everyone is experiencing the same cognitive dissonance. Few boats are sailing upright. It is an existential concept that again seems scary to venture down, so most people do not.

*Then the twist...* someone whispers in your ear, "You're not standing on the outside of the circle. You are standing at the very center with everyone else...in the exact same spot... where everyone is trying to figure out how to journey toward the horizon and see new lands and uncharted territories."

*Wait, what? *_How can both exist at once?! _That's part of the trick of seeing past the horizon. From one perspective, you are seeking an absolute point. From another, you are seeking All That Is which awaits you beyond the horizon of your very perspective.

_Seeking to understand how every facet of life is part of All That Is can only help each human grow. Limiting that perspective is entirely counterintuitive to the argument that usually comes out of a person's mouth supporting their personal comforts in limitation... a comfort in contrast to fear. Why fear? That's a good question and is perhaps a deeper philosophical question to explore for every single person. Why remain voluntarily in a prison of your world, a prison of your mind, when you can quite literally walk right out and explore the amazingness and beauty this Universe has to offer?_

Anyway... I think you catch my drift.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 14, 2019)

VinRice said:


> Completely untrue.


I was oversimplifying, I know. The scientific worldview is not static, and as new information come to light _sometimes_ the prevailing wisdom admits new ideas into the world of allowable consensus reality. For instance, people who have had transformative near death experiences were once afraid to talk about them, but now have avenues for sharing their stories without being summarily dismissed as cranks, in at least some mainstream subcultures.

But I stand by my broader point that scientific materialism is fueled by a dogma that constrains natural degrees of freedom regarding what is possible vs. what is not in prejudicial, arbitrary ways.


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 14, 2019)

Quasar said:


> In short, we mistook information for knowledge, and knowledge for wisdom. We need to somehow reconcile our _profound_ ignorance with an infusion of higher consciousness before we annihilate ourselves, and we're running out of time.



This.


----------



## dflood (Feb 14, 2019)

Climbing down off the high horses of materialism vs idealism, or whatever, how are we supposed to settle the 432 hz claim without resorting to the scientific method? Should we vote on it? Should we defer to self appointed sages? Come on, we’re talking about a physical phenomenon predicted to produce physical effects. If ever there was a case for using the scientific method to prove or disprove a claim, this is it.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 14, 2019)

Pointless...


----------



## storyteller (Feb 14, 2019)

dflood said:


> Climbing down off the high horses of materialism vs idealism, or whatever, how are we supposed to settle the 432 hz claim without resorting to the scientific method? Should we vote on it? Should we defer to self appointed sages? Come on, we’re talking about a physical phenomenon predicted to produce physical effects. If ever there was a case for using the scientific method to prove or disprove a claim, this is it.


Not to sound like a broken record, but the secret to understanding the mystique and all that is alluring (or repelling depending on your perspective) about 432 hz is to research Solfeggio numbers, how they relate to the vibratory state of existence. There is SO MUCH there. Einstein, Tesla, Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc. Seriously. But then you will question *why* it is relevant and want to prove out the theories because there is a gap between philosophy and what mankind has to prove. Then you have to dig further because the "how to" isn't evident at first blush.

This will take you down the very path that I've been down (and that numerous others have traversed over the millennia). I'm not just trying to parade around a weird esoteric principle. But the proofs rely on understanding the very foundation to existence first. It is completely existential in one aspect. But once you wrap your brain about the existential concepts, then you can rationally start from nothing/everything, and understand how *relativity* began - how measurement began, why the concepts of spheres are so important, etc. You get into how sequences began, why numbers ARE important because order is the backbone of how chaos goes from abstract to concrete (at least conceptually because it exists in both states at once... kinda like the double slit experiment proves).

The backbone of this concept is kind of like trying to tell someone over the phone where you are on planet earth compared to their present location when they've never been there or have access to any of the modern mapping tools we have today. You have to use *relativity* to do so. At that point, they can just take your word for it, research it, or follow your guidance. What if you were trying to describe where Earth is in the universe? Scientists don't even know because they can only guess where we fall in our galaxy based off of models, then guess where we are relative to something that is known... like the speed of light... and for that matter, other glowing orbs of light in the darkness of space. They may get close, but it is still just a *relative* guess. At best, you'd have to give points of reference so a triangulation of sorts could occur...

Regardless, this path will lead you to understand how spin began (or always was... again, depending on your perspective. There is always a duality... a yin/yang if you will) and the concepts of how vibrations are the most basic principle to the architecture of All That Is. There IS a unique pattern and unique methodology that occurs when *potential* forms into something rational. This "something rational" eventually forms into a heightened state of existence due to this unique pattern. The heightened state of existence then rationalizes where it came from, what it is observing, etc.

In modern science, the basic model is self-awareness/consciousness... e.g. the ability to look in the mirror and recognize yourself in the reflection. The pattern to how this all formed from the beginning of everything/nothing is what I've written about. It is what I've been blessed to bring into this world at this particular time. It is as important as studying everything through the lens of science today. The two meet in the middle.

The way science proves stuff today is tantamount to studying a puzzle piece without knowing what the puzzle really is about. The eventual outcome will potentially involve restructuring your knowledge to the beginning of what humans know as the beginning. But once you have the beginning, you can mathematically and scientifically progress and prove out these principles. Then, reverse into them as humans traditionally do. You will have proofs from both sides. You cannot discover *absolute* *Truth *without understanding relativity and the unknown. Science parades _known_ information compared against other _known_ information as Truth. That's a bit backwards and only works for the current moment/perspective. It is a bit *relative* as I would say.


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 14, 2019)

Can we get a quick tally: how many different psychoactive drugs have we all done in the past 30 days? 

Definitely not a cop, no sir.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 14, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> Can we get a quick tally: how many different psychoactive drugs have we all done in the past 30 days?
> 
> Definitely not a cop, no sir.


Lol. I think we should all celebrate the dialogue.  It truly doesn't matter which perspective each person is coming from (or their opinions), it is just good constructive, *healthy*, high-minded conversation... a rarity among the usual conversations these days. I was happy to see the OP's question!

But for the record... Zero.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 15, 2019)

[QUOTE="storyteller, post: 4354131, member: 12182" about 432 hz is to research Solfeggio numbers, how they relate to the vibratory state of existence. There is SO MUCH there. ..Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc. Seriously.
[/QUOTE]

You are probably thinking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation , not about "solfeggio frequencies". Unfortunately, outside of sounding very nice and sometimes making stuff to resonate in your room, these frequencies are not "repairing DNA" etc, wow. 

Solfeggio frequencies is just a new age scam, created by these guys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller_Institute#Cult_allegations) and has nothing to do with traditional esoteric mysticism of any real culture or tuning mathematics, or real world physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music

I agree that there are truths that science still can't reach, but sometimes people tend to believe in every nonsense even when it's very easy to research using Internet.

You may enjoy: Kappraff, J. "Connections: The Geometric Bridge between Art and Science" or Kappraff, J. “Beyond Measure: Essays in Nature Myth, and Number.”, if you are interested in more real "sacred" geometry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Kappraff

"
In 1991 his book _Connections_ won a prize for the best book in chemistry, physics, mathematics, astronomy and reference from the Association of American Publishers.[1]
"


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Lol. I think we should all celebrate the dialogue.  It truly doesn't matter which perspective each person is coming from (or their opinions), it is just good constructive, *healthy*, high-minded conversation... a rarity among the usual conversations these days. I was happy to see the OP's question!
> 
> But for the record... Zero.



Maybe I was a bit snide, but it really hasn't been much of a dialogue. When one side insists that only they understand the untestable truth, all you can have are dueling monologues.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> When one side insists that only they understand the untestable truth, all you can have are dueling monologues.



So which side are you referring to?


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> Maybe I was a bit snide, but it really hasn't been much of a dialogue. When one side insists that only they understand the untestable truth, all you can have are dueling monologues.





averystemmler said:


> Can we get a quick tally: how many different psychoactive drugs have we all done in the past 30 days?
> 
> Definitely not a cop, no sir.


LOL. Scientific materialists always end up countering with ad hominem shrugs. We're either on drugs, or smug (as Tack put it earlier) or whatever. I can only conclude that this is because the rather bizarre metaphysical belief that "reality" can be reduced to abstract material quantities as observed from the 2nd-person perspective doesn't really pass muster when critically assessed rather than merely blindly assumed.

If you have any cogent defense of a materialist ontology that doesn't beg the question by assuming itself, I would like to hear it.


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Quasar said:


> LOL. Scientific materialists always end up countering with ad hominem shrugs. We're either on drugs, or smug (as Tack put it earlier) or whatever. I can only conclude that this is because the rather bizarre metaphysical belief that "reality" can be reduced to abstract material quantities as observed from the 2nd-person perspective doesn't really pass muster when critically assessed rather than merely blindly assumed.
> 
> If you have any cogent defense of a materialist ontology that doesn't beg the question by assuming itself, I would like to hear it.



It is met with shrugs because there is no other response. All other efforts have been exhausted. I think you're dense, you think I'm dense. Nothing left to be gained. I'll admit my "drugs" comment was unnecessary, but I've had conversations adjacent to this one with folks actively under the influence. They are equally productive.

*ONE MORE EDIT, because I'd like to make a point without yet again bumping the thread (and this hasn't been responded to):

I've never claimed that materialism has an explanation for existence. My stance is that you don't either, and that you are the one making dire predictions about our collective wellbeing. Therefore, the burden of providing an explanation falls on you.



Quasar said:


> That it is spectacularly wrong is something you can and will learn on another day..



Your response to Tack (above) was undeniably smug, and accomplished nothing but driving him from the conversation. I was considering your position seriously throughout the thread until I read that line. If you're going for victory by attrition, congratulations, you have it. You've out-smugged us all.



Marko Zirkovich said:


> So which side are you referring to?



No.

EDIT: in the spirit of not being petulant, I'll say "both." There cannot be a dialogue regardless.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 15, 2019)

BabyGiraffe said:


> [QUOTE="storyteller, post: 4354131, member: 12182" about 432 hz is to research Solfeggio numbers, how they relate to the vibratory state of existence. There is SO MUCH there. ..Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc. Seriously.



You are probably thinking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation , not about "solfeggio frequencies". Unfortunately, outside of sounding very nice and sometimes making stuff to resonate in your room, these frequencies are not "repairing DNA" etc, wow.

Solfeggio frequencies is just a new age scam, created by these guys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller_Institute#Cult_allegations) and has nothing to do with traditional esoteric mysticism of any real culture or tuning mathematics, or real world physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music

I agree that there are truths that science still can't reach, but sometimes people tend to believe in every nonsense even when it's very easy to research using Internet.

You may enjoy: Kappraff, J. "Connections: The Geometric Bridge between Art and Science" or Kappraff, J. “Beyond Measure: Essays in Nature Myth, and Number.”, if you are interested in more real "sacred" geometry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Kappraff

[/QUOTE]

Always when it comes to themes like this or politic, Inventors like Tesla etc., you can read the most bullshit on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia you find many disinformation.
Everything healthy without pharmaceutical medicine is more or less cut down there.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> EDIT: in the spirit of not being petulant, I'll say "both." There cannot be a dialogue regardless.



Thanks for editing and adding to your response, which I had seen in its initial form. I do appreciate it.


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Marko Zirkovich said:


> Thanks for editing and uppending your initial response, which I had seen. I do appreciate it.



It took some willpower.  (EDIT: Aaaand this bit of snark was also in response to your initial phasing, which has changed. We're batting 100 on the communication! I see now that you didn't mean it sarcastically, so I apologize.)

My "No" was and is a refusal to go down this road again. If you care about my thoughts, I feel they are adequately summarized in my prior posts.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> It took some willpower.



No need to apologize and sorry about the edit while you apparently composed your reply. With English as my 3rd language, I sometimes catch awkward sentence structures too late and find a clearer way to express myself after already hitting that "post reply" button.

And... I know what you mean. I had a couple of different responses running through my mind, which have become moot at this point. 

All's good.


----------



## pkm (Feb 15, 2019)

I have an idea. Why don’t we just count seconds a little faster? They are already an arbitrary length. Let’s say there are 61.111111111 seconds in a minute. This way we don’t have to transpose our music and it would all become 432Hz without having to sound any different. I feel more aligned already.


----------



## chibear (Feb 15, 2019)

This has been bouncing around in my head since the debate started.....about 20 years ago. Most of the actual reasearch I have read over the years has involved exposing plants (and some rodents if I remember right) to different _pitches_ and the growth and/or behavior is compared to a silent control. 

Anyway, so I tune my instrument(s) to 432 then write a tune in B major. The listener is never exposed to the 432 pitch. Then what?? and why??


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> Your response to Tack (above) was undeniably smug, and accomplished nothing but driving him from the conversation. I was considering your position seriously throughout the thread until I read that line. If you're going for victory by attrition, congratulations, you have it. You've out-smugged us all.



Okay, so perhaps that comment came across as smug (just as you admitted to being snide). I did not mean it to be smug, as it was simply an honest expression of belief. For example, since all human beings die, _if one believes in an afterlife_, it follows that one will also believe that anyone who does not believe in an afterlife will discover that they were wrong when they die and subsequently experience a post-death awareness.

Of course, if I am wrong about afterlife, I am also wrong about the inevitability of non-afterlife believers discovering they were mistaken. But the point is that the one belief necessarily flows from the other.

On the other hand, even if one is smug or snide, so what? Neither truth nor falsity are dependent on the perceived psychemotional attitude of the person presenting it. If Alice smugly says that the sun rises in the east, and Bob humbly and eloquently says that it rises in the west, Alice is still correct despite Bob's presentation coming across as more appealing.



averystemmler said:


> I've never claimed that materialism has an explanation for existence. My stance is that you don't either, and that you are the one making dire predictions about our collective wellbeing. Therefore, the burden of providing an explanation falls on you.



The problem with opting out of an ontological worldview is that we can't. We can certainly opt out of intellectualizing on the subject, in fact most people probably never even engage the issue in a formal or abstract way. But it's one of those deals where "no vote is a vote", because all of us have core belief systems about what is and what isn't, and we make decisions on the basis of those beliefs whether we know it or not. Collective consciousness (or zeitgeist) functions this way as well on a societal level, for better or worse.

But if you don't claim that materialism has an explanation for existence, then cool. You are right about that, whether or not it is only by omission.

And BTW I am far being from the only person making dire predictions about the well-being of humankind. Pretty much everyone who talks about the state of the world is doing that these days from one perspective or another...


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Okay, so perhaps that comment came across as smug (just as you admitted to being snide). I did not mean it to be smug, as it was simply an honest expression of belief. For example, since all human beings die, _if one believes in an afterlife_, it follows that one will also believe that anyone who does not believe in an afterlife will discover that they were wrong when they die and subsequently experience a post-death awareness



Fair enough then.



Quasar said:


> The problem with opting out of an ontological worldview is that we can't. We can certainly opt out of intellectualizing on the subject, in fact most people probably never even engage the issue in a formal or abstract way. But it's one of those deals where "no vote is a vote", because all of us have core belief systems about what is and what isn't, and we make decisions on the basis of those beliefs whether we know it or not. Collective consciousness (or zeitgeist) functions this way as well on a societal level, for better or worse



I fully and happily admit that I don't have an answer for the source and meaning of all things. To put constraints on the question - declaring that opting out is impossible, for example - is to imply that you have some knowledge of the answer. What it the answer is a "null"? What if the answer is that there is no answer? What if the answer is 42? I have no idea, and it's going to take some deeper evidence (there's that word again) before I believe that anyone is closer to a solution than that.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> I fully and happily admit that I don't have an answer for the source and meaning of all things. To put constraints on the question - declaring that opting out is impossible, for example - is to imply that you have some knowledge of the answer. What it the answer is a "null"? What if the answer is that there is no answer? What if the answer is 42? I have no idea, and it's going to take some deeper evidence (there's that word again) before I believe that anyone is closer to a solution than that.



I'll return the fair enough then...

The notion that one can't opt out doesn't imply that I or anyone else "have the answer". It just means that we still have default core beliefs that we live by, with real implications for our lives in the world.

Ethics, for instance: Is it wrong to steal? If so, then why? Where does the principle come from? What phenomenal aspect of our shared reality has the authority to confer judgement in this area? Does it even matter either way? Why or why not?

Although there have been a vast number of ethical paradigms put forth over the centuries to answer such questions, what they all have in common is that they appeal to _someone_ or _something_. This someone or something may in turn appeal to something more fundamental and so on, but you can't keep going forever. Ultimately there must be an ontological fundament that just IS, similar to an axiom in a mathematical system that is taken to be true at face value.

If I were to somehow learn that fundamental moral authority could be reduced to a null, then I would quite likely conclude that it is okay to steal as long as I "felt" like it and determined that I could perform the theft without getting caught. And you can't counter this conclusion unless you evoke a belief in something that you understand to be more authoritatively "real" than that.


----------



## muziksculp (Feb 15, 2019)

Any idea what the reference frequency is for those who have Perfect Pitch ? i.e. is their a=440, or 432, or 420 or ... ?


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Quasar said:


> And you can't counter this conclusion unless you evoke a belief in something that you understand to be more authoritatively "real" than that.



You underestimate my ability to be a pain in the ass!



Quasar said:


> The notion that one can't opt out doesn't imply that I or anyone else "have the answer". It just means that we still have default core beliefs that we live by, with real implications for our lives in the world.



I think I know what you're saying, but ethics is a bad example, because it is a very human example. Moral authority is based around conceptions of right and wrong, which are based on our senses, our dislike of pain, and our human survival instincts for a strong group. It is yarn that - in my materialist view - ends in the brain. When a rock strikes another rock far from us in the cosmos, it is removed from any notion of right or wrong. It is the "null" option. It's outside of ethics altogether and, absent of lifeforms with motivation, ethnics does not exist.

So, if I'm interpreting correctly and instead you're asserting more abstractly that some things must "be", then I have to invoke my own nuclear option: "why?" You can keep asking why until everything breaks. If you put a why in front of a why you get a hall of interrogative mirrors. But we're talking about the existential forces that make up our own three dimensions and a great big question mark beyond, so if you don't ask the question, you're casting a human shadow over all of it.



Quasar said:


> Ultimately there must be an ontological fundament that just IS, similar to an axiom in a mathematical system that is taken to be true at face value.



Alright, why must there be a fundamental axiom? Given that we understand so little about the mechanisms of existence, what if the laws of nature are in flux at all times? Might be that we wouldn't recognize it, caught up in it as we are. You're presuming that you understand an awful lot about time, for instance. Maybe an ontological fundament can be and not be. Does time come before or after the laws of nature in the signal flow? Are "before" and "after" cosmic constants, or is that just how we interpret it? You can inquire about every element of our experience, and you will eventually hit a depth where the only answer is "good question."



Quasar said:


> This someone or something may in turn appeal to something more fundamental and so on, but you can't keep going forever



Sure you can. That's the easiest thing we've visualized so far. 

I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but this is my reason for sticking to the material. When we wander outside, we're a bull in reality's china shop.

Or maybe we've been having parallel conversations this whole time and this great big tangent accomplished nothing. In which case I'm going to go download Eduardo Tarilonte's new library and cry into a mountain of discounted post-Valentine's day chocolate.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Feb 15, 2019)

Marko Zirkovich said:


> No need to apologize and sorry about the edit while you apparently composed your reply. With English as my 3rd language, I sometimes catch awkward sentence structures too late and find a clearer way to express myself after already hitting that "post reply" button.
> 
> And... I know what you mean. I had a couple of different responses running through my mind, which have become moot at this point.
> 
> All's good.



With English as my first and only language I still occasionally cause confusion or convey ideas poorly, so don't fret too much


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> I think I know what you're saying, but ethics is a bad example, because it is a very human example. Moral authority is based around conceptions of right and wrong, which are based on our senses, our dislike of pain, and our human survival instincts for a strong group. It is yarn that - in my materialist view - ends in the brain. When a rock strikes another rock far from us in the cosmos, it is removed from any notion of right or wrong. It is the "null" option. It's outside of ethics altogether and, absent of lifeforms with motivation, ethnics does not exist.



On the contrary, I think ethics is a great example, precisely because it does have immediately accessible human implications & consequences.

But you have (in the paragraph quoted above) laid out a concise and clearly stated metaphysical argument in which your ontological fundament is the physical human brain. Cool. Thanks for doing that.

I would like to ask you a very simple question: What, phenomenally, exists in your materialist worldview that makes it "wrong" to steal?

I'm not trying to be smug nor snide. I would really like to know your answer.

If moral authority is based on "conceptions of right and wrong", then can't I just create new conceptions that better serve my wants and needs? I have senses, I dislike pain and I have a survival instinct. Your implied notion of this instinct being trans-personal by involving a "strong group" suggests that we are perhaps evolutionarily hardwired to believe stealing is wrong because it negatively impacts our collective ability to survive by destroying trust and eroding social cohesion. This, I grant (though it is not the whole truth), is probably true.

So if I have this innate, genetically-inherited sense that stealing is wrong, then I may be well-served to acknowledge that if I steal I am probably going to have some negative thoughts & feelings associated with that. From there, all I need to do is calculatingly assess whether or not any residual guilt is worth suffering in relationship to the rewards I will gain by the act of theft. I may well decide that it is. Furthermore, I can fortify my resolve to steal based on your insight that the whole moral issue is nothing but a "yarn that ends in the brain" anyway, so it doesn't really matter. It's not as though it means anything in the grand scheme of things.

Materialistic metaphysics = nihilism. They are one and the same.


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Quasar said:


> But you have (in the paragraph quoted above) laid out a concise and clearly stated metaphysical argument in which your ontological fundament is the physical human brain. Cool. Thanks for doing that.



Okay. I look forward to hearing you support this.



Quasar said:


> I would like to ask you a very simple question: What, phenomenally, exists in your materialist worldview that makes it "wrong" to steal?



My upbringing. I'm conditioned to feel bad about it and numerous other things, which I'm thankful for. It's kept me out of prison.

Have you ever been around a baby? They'll take whatever they please. Cats too, unless you train them otherwise.



Quasar said:


> If moral authority is based on "conceptions of right and wrong", then can't I just create new conceptions that better serve my wants and needs?



Can you choose to stop being conditioned? If yes, then yes.



Quasar said:


> So if I have this innate, genetically-inherited sense that stealing is wrong, then I may be well-served to acknowledge that if I steal I am probably going to have some negative thoughts & feelings associated with that. From there, all I need to do is calculatingly assess whether or not any residual guilt is worth suffering in relationship to the rewards I will gain by the act of theft. I may well decide that it is. Furthermore, I can fortify my resolve to steal based on your insight that the whole moral issue is nothing but a "yarn that ends in the brain" anyway, so it doesn't really matter. It's not as though it means anything in the grand scheme of things



I'm not sure where you get this notion that you can control your feelings. There are things in your body "you" (if you want to get into self, we can do that too) can not control. Most of them, even.



Quasar said:


> we are perhaps evolutionarily hardwired to believe stealing is wrong because it negatively impacts our collective ability to survive by destroying trust and eroding social cohesion.



That's certainly a possibility, but I didn't say it. That's a subject for someone else to debate.



Quasar said:


> Materialistic metaphysics = nihilism. They are one and the same.



Sure? You can call it whatever you please. Just don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> My upbringing. I'm conditioned to feel bad about it and numerous other things, which I'm thankful for. It's kept me out of prison.



So IOW the things a person is conditioned to believe are morally right by virtue of the fact that one has been conditioned to believe them? What of someone who, from your point of view, had a "bad" or entirely different upbringing and now feels good about the same things you feel bad about? Is this, morally speaking, equally valid? Is that person on an equal moral footing with you?

If not, then it can't be the "upbringing" per se, but instead the qualities and content of your _particular_ upbringing, which is a distinct phenomenon, existing apart from the generic activity of bringing someone up. So you haven't answered my question about what makes something morally "right" or "wrong", you only told me about the delivery system through which your moral compass was imparted.

IOW, you told me about the bottle, whereas I was asking about the beverage inside the bottle.



averystemmler said:


> Can you choose to stop being conditioned? If yes, then yes.
> 
> I'm not sure where you get this notion that you can control your feelings. There are things in your body "you" (if you want to get into self, we can do that too) can not control. Most of them, even.



I agree with most of this. Though I believe in free will, we are terribly constrained insofar as we can't control the desires or preferences which predispose us to make choices, not to mention the proverbial "nature & nurture" which filter our experiential perceptions and interpretations, involuntary body stuff, unconscious impulses etc...

...But in response to this I can only point out the obvious: The world is _saturated_ in conduct that you and I would likely agree is morally reprehensible. In the example of theft we're at a point where literally every physical (or virtual) object that is deemed to have value is under lock, key or dongle 24/7, so evidently a great many people can and do make the calculated choice to steal, and often do so in direct violation of their stated or ostensible ethical beliefs. I would claim that this is a soul sickness fostered in no small part by the emergence of scientific materialism as the preeminent ontological belief system, a belief system that can't have an authentic morality for very simple reason that abstract, quantitative physical properties can neither convey nor account for the qualities of conscious human experience. It's a false god, and a particularly limited, empty and uncaring one at that.


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Quasar said:


> So IOW the things a person is conditioned to believe are morally right by virtue of the fact that one has been conditioned to believe them? What of someone who, from your point of view, had a "bad" or entirely different upbringing and now feels good about the same things you feel bad about? Is this, morally speaking, equally valid? Is that person on an equal moral footing with you?
> 
> If not, then it can't be the "upbringing" per se, but instead the qualities and content of your _particular_ upbringing, which is a distinct phenomenon, existing apart from the generic activity of bringing someone up. So you haven't answered my question about what makes something morally "right" or "wrong", you only told me about the delivery system through which your moral compass was imparted.



I think I conveyed my response poorly then: I don't consider morality an absolute. That's why I thought it was a poor example of the "fundamental axiom" we were talking about before. I believe stealing is wrong because I was raised to, and I was wired that way from birth. If I were raised in another environment, or were a psychopath, I might not. Me believing stealing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. It is no more wrong than a snake eating a bird's eggs, but human society doesn't function if everyone is eating each other's young, so we have rules to ensure our survival. So, if you're looking for a fundamental in my book it's survival. But that only applies to life as we know it, and the vast majority of existence isn't hospitable to life as we know it.



Quasar said:


> I would claim that this is a soul sickness fostered in no small part by the emergence of scientific materialism as the preeminent ontological belief system, a belief system that can't have an authentic morality for very simple reason that abstract, quantitative physical properties can neither convey nor account for the qualities of conscious human experience. It's a false god, and a particularly limited, empty and uncaring one at that.



And this is where we disagree the most. I acknowledge that my principles are personal, but I abide by them all the same. If you're pining for a bygone age before the soul sickness of the post-enlightenment, a history book or two might be your remedy. It seems to me we are getting more gentle as the centuries wear on. Just a few hundred years ago, I'd not have made it to adulthood without witnessing a public execution. Sometimes with torture. Families brought picnic baskets.

I don't have the stamina for a historical atrocities debate right now, but the "Hardcore History" podcasts are a fun introduction to the subject.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> I think I conveyed my response poorly then: I don't consider morality an absolute. That's why I thought it was a poor example of the "fundamental axiom" we were talking about before. I believe stealing is wrong because I was raised to, and I was wired that way from birth. If I were raised in another environment, or were a psychopath, I might not. Me believing stealing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. It is no more wrong than a snake eating a bird's eggs, but human society doesn't function if everyone is eating each other's young, so we have rules to ensure our survival. So, if you're looking for a fundamental in my book it's survival. But that only applies to life as we know it, and the vast majority of existence isn't hospitable to life as we know it.



Ah, so you are on the exact same moral footing as the serial killer because authentic moral agency simply doesn't exist. Okay. At least you have answered my question. That I find the answer to be utterly insane (though entirely materialistically mainstream) is beside the point because it's your worldview and you're entitled to it. Materialistic ontologies lead one inevitably to these sorts of conclusions, if one is intellectually honest. So I commend you for your honesty.

If your ontological fundamental is physical survival, I have bad news, man. You're doomed. It's like the biography of Jim Morrison entitled _No One Gets Out of Here Alive_. If I held that belief, the first question I would ask myself is: _Why would I invest in a core belief that is premised on the single most unlikely possible outcome in the entire known universe? _But if this doesn't seem irrational to you, then it doesn't. From my perspective, it's just another example of why materialist belief systems are utterly nonsensical, even when viewed from a purely scientific, empirical bias. They lead otherwise perfectly intelligent people to place fundamental importance in that which quite simply and obviously won't ever happen.



averystemmler said:


> And this is where we disagree the most. I acknowledge that my principles are personal, but I abide by them all the same. If you're pining for a bygone age before the soul sickness of the post-enlightenment, a history book or two might be your remedy. It seems to me we are getting more gentle as the centuries wear on. Just a few hundred years ago, I'd not have made it to adulthood without witnessing a public execution. Sometimes with torture. Families brought picnic baskets.
> 
> I don't have the stamina for a historical atrocities debate right now, but the "Hardcore History" podcasts are a fun introduction to the subject.



I'm a history buff, aware of the kinds of things you allude to, and will check out the Hardcore History, thanks. I agree with you that there was no noble "bygone age" when people were much different than they are now, and if I implied that then it was poor wording on my part. Every epoch has its own unique triumphs and tragedies specific to it's time, though the essential human condition does not change...

...To try and put all this stuff into a proper historical context is just _too much_ for this thread, which has been severely overextended from its 440 vs 432 hz OT already... But I do not quite agree that we are "more gentle" than in past ages either. The families with the picnic baskets at the execution did not go home to a TV that featured round-the-clock spectacles of celebratory violence either, so that's probably a wash. When it comes to entertainment, you make do with what you have...
[/QUOTE]


----------



## averystemmler (Feb 15, 2019)

Quasar said:


> ...To try and put all this stuff into a proper historical context is just _too much_ for this thread, which has been severely overextended from its 440 vs 432 hz OT already... But I do not quite agree that we are "more gentle" than in past ages either. The families with the picnic baskets at the execution did not go home to a TV that featured round-the-clock spectacles of celebratory violence either, so that's probably a wash. When it comes to entertainment, you make do with what you have...



You're right on that front. I think we've about exhausted our debate and should leave the thread alone, but I suppose gentle is a strong word. "More cognizant," I'll say. If there's a more peaceful future to be had, we're at least engaging in the conversations necessary to get there.



Quasar said:


> Ah, so you are on the exact same moral footing as the serial killer because authentic moral agency simply doesn't exist.



If you want to phrase it that way, sure. But as someone who doesn't put a great deal of weight in your moral system, you may as well be telling me the serial killer shares my eye color. He and I are certainly both humans, we've just gone down different paths.



Quasar said:


> If your ontological fundamental is physical survival, I have bad news, man. You're doomed.



Hence my disclaimer afterwards. I don't have a fundamental ontological axiom, remember?

I think we understand each other now. If you'd like to get a word in I won't blame you, but I say we let it rest.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 15, 2019)

muziksculp said:


> Any idea what the reference frequency is for those who have Perfect Pitch ? i.e. is their a=440, or 432, or 420 or ... ?


"Perfect pitch" is basically a very good memorization, so people living in any Western country will have their A as 440 (of course, there is the story about the kid that was ear trained using out of tune piano; poor kid was hearing everything out of tune later on, because of the way "perfect pitch" functions).


----------



## elpedro (Feb 15, 2019)

None of it is real! Herz is made-up, Second is made-up. It’s all arbitrary. (Thanks pope Gregory). Twelve tones, the clock and calendar were all standardised to facilitate the roll-out of the worlds first franchise, the Church....


----------



## Quasar (Feb 15, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> If you want to phrase it that way, sure. But as someone who doesn't put a great deal of weight in your moral system, you may as well be telling me the serial killer shares my eye color. He and I are certainly both humans, we've just gone down different paths.



Although I don't quite agree with your reasoning here, it's extremely well said! Yeah let's give it a rest. Thanks for the debate.

On the subject of 440 vs. 432. I am extremely skeptical about mystical claims regarding this, mainly because Hz is about _cycles per second_, and a second comes from the evolution of our calendar and the 24/60/60 division of the day. So what significance would the current arbitrary second length have in terms of universal energy vibrations? If they had divided the minute into 48 parts instead of 60, we would be talking about the difference between 550 and 540 Hz. Different numerology, same frequencies...

...And since musical notes mainly sound the way they sound in relational context with the other notes in a melodic structure, I don't think the standard matters. We just adapt to whatever A=x is being used. No big deal.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 1, 2019)

Quasar said:


> I agree entirely that our perceptual field - what we absorb via the 5 senses - has probably evolved to enable survival as opposed to enable thinking about ultimate truth. And I don't think we disagree about logic in any significant way, at least insofar as we can agree on the same formal axioms on which logic is based, although I do not think it is flawed. I think it's really good at what it does, just as I think empirical inquiry is good at what it does.
> 
> But any applied logic is only as good as its a priori assumptions, and any ontology requires that _something_ be a priori or fundamental, true in a way that is not contingent on its relationship to something else. So the question becomes: What is the most logical, empirically self-evident and parsimonious starting point? To the materialist, this fundament is found in extrinsic, abstract quantities that exist as distinct phenomena apart from the conscious experiencer. As such, truth is somehow separate from us, "out there", and impersonal. Such truth is ultimately devoid of purpose because you cannot derive the sublimity and variety of interior, subjective experience by analyzing external, impersonal abstractions from a 2nd-person perspective. You just can't. Yet at the end of the day conscious experience is all that we have. The appearance of the world, of spacetime and the rest of it only exist for us as aspects or models of behavior within the field of our conscious experience.
> 
> Most people in most times and places have understood this & taken it for granted. The Post-Enlightenment developed world we live in today is an anomaly, an ontological dark age. (Oppressive, ossified institutional Medieval religion shares in the blame too, but that's another subject.) Science, due to its great successes, became pathologically over-infatuated with its own methodology. and even as we lost the critical ability to understand mythos while maintaining intellectual honesty, we began to suffer from the collective delusion that gaining mastery of the ability to manipulate certain mechanistic processes somehow, magically, also conferred a superior understanding of what we were doing and why, an understanding that formerly and properly belonged to the provinces of philosophy, intuition, myth, divine revelation and religion. In short, we mistook information for knowledge, and knowledge for wisdom. We need to somehow reconcile our _profound_ ignorance with an infusion of higher consciousness before we annihilate ourselves, and we're running out of time.


Unfortunately, all of this is complete BS. Grow up, dude. Stop fooling yourself. Your rationalizations are on the level of philosophically ambitious high school girls.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 1, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> Unfortunately, all of this is complete BS. Grow up, dude. Stop fooling yourself. Your rationalizations are on the level of philosophically ambitious high school girls.


*Bait taken.*

What is your purpose of even writing this? 

I want to put something in very clear context. An educated person that pursues the expansion of his/her mind will see openly through as many perspectives and levels of understanding as possible and will never belittle someone through name calling or by offering absolutist opinions forced upon another as fact. Counter to this, it is the people that parade opinions as absolute fact that are denying themselves a greater understanding of life and existence. These are limitations imposed by the ego out of fear of learning something new, or stepping out of a comfort zone.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 1, 2019)

storyteller said:


> What is your purpose of even writing this?


I want to spare him a life as a Waldorf-and-Statler-type, grumpy philosophical zealot.

As for you, with your snake oil: One thing is "learning something new", another thing is having the figments of a confused mind be presented to you as secret wisdom from ancient times.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 1, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> I want to spare him a life as a Waldorf-and-Statler-type, grumpy philosophical zealot.
> 
> As for you, with your snake oil: One thing is "learning something new", another thing is having the figments of a confused mind be presented to you as secret wisdom from ancient times.


Then simply look the other way. It is that simple. You can never force something upon someone and expect any form of willful acceptance. I haven't forced any information upon anyone here. I contributed an answer to a question that was asked. I supported my stance when questioned about it. To those that vehemently disagreed, I offered download codes for digital copies of the books for free. It isn't about money for me at all. Look at the whole Storyteller Store site. It is a "name your price" concept now. Yet, none of the naysayers took me up on it. I wouldn't expect them to.

In the end, I have always lived my life on the premise that any work of truth/wisdom/knowledge (in any medium/format - music, art, film, dance, etc) will stand the test of time and the tests of any abuse it can take. And so it will be with what I have been blessed to be able to share through these books, the Sonalkiss VI, the mobile apps, and the other platforms/mediums I have not disclosed. And I humbly must say there will be others to come that will reveal even more than I have been blessed to share so far. But a person has to first desire knowledge before it can be learned. Perhaps it may only be a glimmer of a greater truth to another's eyes. Perhaps it is completely disconnected from another's truth. It matters not. The information is there for when someone seeks it.

The greatest takeaway though, is to realize that your words will not "spare" @Quasar from being who he is, nor will your comments cause a ripple in my daily life. The fact you'd desire to alter someone and bend them to your relative viewpoint speaks volumes to your own insecurity. Perhaps that should be explored rather than raining hate on others. Love. Seriously. It sounds hippy, but it doesn't matter. That really is the point here. And if that is too difficult, then start with respect of the individuality in each and every person/plant/animal with which you cross paths.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 1, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Love. Seriously. It sounds hippy


Mine is tough love. Seriously. It sounds hippy, but I'd like him to have a better relationship to the rest of the world. As long as he thinks everyone else is commited to a fundamentally flawed materialistic ontology, he clearly needs help.


----------



## averystemmler (Mar 1, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Yet, none of the naysayers took me up on it. I wouldn't expect them to.



Sure I'll bite. If the offer stands, I'll take it.

Everything you've said so far has sounded entirely unsubstantiated (and insultingly arrogant, frankly) to me, but if there's something to back it up in your books, I'd like to know.

I can't promise I'll read it all tomorrow, but I'll go through it slowly with a critical lens and an open mind. If I think you're onto something by the end of it, I'll buy a few copies.


----------



## Quasar (Mar 1, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> Unfortunately, all of this is complete BS. Grow up, dude. Stop fooling yourself. Your rationalizations are on the level of philosophically ambitious high school girls.



Well, when you put that way... LOL.

Have you thought about submitting this presentation to _Scientific American_? You really should. Your insights are far too profound to have them languish on a virtual instrument forum that only a handful of people will ever read.


----------



## Heledir (Mar 1, 2019)

Well, all I'll say is that the moment I tuned to 432hz _MY ENTIRE LIFE IMPROVED AND THUS THE WORLD!_
Take that for what its worth.


----------



## elpedro (Mar 1, 2019)

You see a disc where there is no disc....


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 1, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> Mine is tough love.



or, with Albert's words:


----------



## VinRice (Mar 1, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> Sure I'll bite. If the offer stands, I'll take it.
> 
> Everything you've said so far has sounded entirely unsubstantiated (and insultingly arrogant, frankly) to me, but if there's something to back it up in your books, I'd like to know.
> 
> I can't promise I'll read it all tomorrow, but I'll go through it slowly with a critical lens and an open mind. If I think you're onto something by the end of it, I'll buy a few copies.



Good luck bud! I fear however that it will be a voyage of frustration and despair. People like this have spent years building the architecture of their delusions. There will be no fault-lines in the internal logic of their narrative, however shaky the misconceptions upon which they are built. Best to quietly back away and leave them to it.


----------



## averystemmler (Mar 1, 2019)

VinRice said:


> Good luck bud! I fear however that it will be a voyage of frustration and despair. People like this have spent years building the architecture of their delusions. There will be no fault-lines in the internal logic of their narrative, however shaky the misconceptions upon which they are built. Best to quietly back away and leave them to it.



I'm not signing up to be his editor. He keeps referencing profundity the likes of which we've never seen, so I'd like to see it. I think that's fair.

The worldview I have now has fought through a protective membrane of scathing and vitriol to get there. I'll give his the chance to do the same, if he wants.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 2, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Well, when you put that way... LOL.
> 
> Have you thought about submitting this presentation to _Scientific American_


I might ask you the same thing.

You are clearly proud of your philosophical semi-professionalism, but what does it all amount to, really? The more meaningful thoughts of yours are neither new nor particularly original, and have been discussed in academic philosophy for at least the last sixty years. You are fighting ghost wind-mills from the past. 

Outside of academic philosophical discourse, non of it bears any significance. Each and every time has to deal with it’s specific set of problems, and the problems we are currently facing will not be solved by fallaciously ascribing abstract metaphysical positions to the people that are trying to advance our knowledge of reality with the best means that we have developed so far.


----------



## Quasar (Mar 2, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> I might ask you the same thing.
> 
> You are clearly proud of your philosophical semi-professionalism, but what does it all amount to, really? The more meaningful thoughts of yours are neither new nor particularly original, and have been discussed in academic philosophy for at least the last sixty years. You are fighting ghost wind-mills from the past.
> 
> Outside of academic philosophical discourse, non of it bears any significance. Each and every time has to deal with it’s specific set of problems, and the problems we are currently facing will not be solved by fallaciously ascribing abstract metaphysical positions to the people that are trying to advance our knowledge of reality with the best means that we have developed so far.



I'm done talking about it here. But certainly nothing discussed here has been new or original, so you are right about that, though it is much, much older than 60 years... As for your other assertions, I will only repeat that I am done talking about it here, and suggest that you look up the absurd implications of philosophical physicalism for yourself if you are interested in doing so.


----------



## woodslanding (Mar 20, 2019)

Yeah, we've all got a matched bunch of holes in our hearing at twelfth-root-of-two intervals.... let's abuse some different follicles for a while! Old hip-hop is nice, back before they figured out how to change tempo without changing pitch.

But if you are going to look for a culprit for musical artificiality, I suggest abandoning 12-tone equal temperament, with its irrational intervals.... May I suggest the pedal steel guitar?


----------



## Fredeke (Apr 9, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not only that, but farts at 432Hz are way more cleansing than 440Hz ones.


I can never get that high pitched. What is your diet ?

No, seriously. I feel the flame war is dying out here, so I'll pour some more oil onto it :

Does the 432Hz magic work at 44.1KHz, or does it require at least 192KHz ? How many bits does it require for us to feel the difference ?

Have you ever noticed that 432(Hz) is exactly 9 times 48(kHz) ?
And that while 9 is almost exactly 8, 432(Hz) + 8(bits) is exactly 440(bertz)??? 
Whooooaaaaaah!!!

(not taking sides, just having fun - i don't care either way because I'm not retuning all my instruments - well ok i'm slightly biased, but honestly my main issue is I won't bother tuning all my synths differently, in any case - well, _OK_, maybe i'll pitch the whole master down by 2% if I ever make a new age album - oh wait, i see an undersupplied market here)


----------



## thereus (Apr 9, 2019)

Remind me never to ask a committee of philosphers to write me a film score.


----------



## woodslanding (Dec 12, 2019)

Rasmus Hartvig said:


> That does indeed exist. Look up "hermode tuning". I believe that at the moment only Cubase supports it.


Kontakt comes with a script for it......


----------



## ethanay (Dec 16, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> I might ask you the same thing.
> 
> You are clearly proud of your philosophical semi-professionalism, but what does it all amount to, really? The more meaningful thoughts of yours are neither new nor particularly original, and have been discussed in academic philosophy for at least the last sixty years. You are fighting ghost wind-mills from the past.
> 
> Outside of academic philosophical discourse, non of it bears any significance. Each and every time has to deal with it’s specific set of problems, and the problems we are currently facing will not be solved by fallaciously ascribing abstract metaphysical positions to the people that are trying to advance our knowledge of reality with the best means that we have developed so far.



Is the logically incoherent and empirically-specious irony in your posts/responses intentional (e.g., tongue in cheek), or is this simply another case of unexamined hypocrisy?


----------



## ethanay (Dec 16, 2019)

No, I don't believe in the power of 432. But I microwave everything in multiples of 21, because it is half of 42, and it makes microwaving things more interesting. I'm thinking of expanding to multiples of 3 and 7. I don't plan on doing such math with any of my instruments. I bet 432 sounds better with single coils, and I think it sounds better on longer scale lengths. But so does downtuning a half or even quarter step. Too bad I don't have any 24.75" scale length guitars anymore, I might feel inclined to tune them up to F...

I also believe in (and truly do feel) the power of the mammalian anus as a wind instrument. The sphincter is technically a reed-like structure, yeah? And the human gut is a huge resonant sound chamber, yeah? 6-8.5 meters a google search tells me, and the stomach alone is 1 litre, so if you can voluntarily work those valves, you could probably get some pretty deep resonance...


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 18, 2019)

ethanay said:


> Is the logically incoherent and empirically-specious irony in your posts/responses intentional (e.g., tongue in cheek), or is this simply another case of unexamined hypocrisy?


If you’d care to explain what ‘logically incoherent irony’ and/or ‘empirically-specious irony’ could possibly be? 
(I _do_ like that you felt compelled to write this as your second-message-ever in these very forums: A warm welcome to you, dear!)


----------



## Mark Schmieder (Dec 21, 2019)

Someone wanted me to join his group a year or two ago, who tunes at 432 Hz, and it was such a maddening experience that I turned down follow-on calls, which I rarely do. I got too confused about what key I was in, and my entire lifetime of perfect pitch memory got thrown out the window. Perhaps if we were all on the same page it would just be a "nothing".

I'm not a big fan of change for change's sake, or unnecessarily upsetting the apple cart. If I want additional sonorities, I go Middle East. Indian as well, but a recently made classical musician friend from there, set me straight about the notion of quarter tones and 21-note or 23-note scales.

It's too time-consuming to go into on a sleep-deprived brain, but a simplified summary is that the scale itself may have just seven notes, but there are variants. Never at the same time, or consecutively. Make sense? It still sort of fills the need for different tuning references, but not in the same way.


----------



## Leon Portelance (Dec 21, 2019)

No


----------



## NekujaK (Dec 22, 2019)

I have no strong opinions about 432 vs 440 tuning, but I can offer up a small sliver of anectodal experience that may be applicable...

A couple of decades ago when I played in a rock band, I routinely tuned all my guitars down a half-step - both acoustic and electric. I did this to make some of the songs more suitable to my vocal range, but also because the lowered tuning altered the overall sound of the instruments, and therefore the band, in a favorable way. Taking instruments, and strings, that are designed to be tuned to E and dropping them down to Eb, has an unmistakable effect on the sound of the instrument itself. To my ears, I might use words like "fuller" and "edgier" to describe it.

There are numerous examples of notable guitarists/bands who did this (Kurt Cobain, Billy Corgan, EVH, Alice in Chains), and nowadays, even more extreme down-tunings are almost de rigueur among heavy metal guitarists - although they often compensate with heavier guage strings and purpose-built guitars.

The ultimate outcome of half-step downtuning is twofold: songs are played a half-step lower, altering their overall tonality (especially apparent when playing covers), and the sound produced by down-tuned instruments is also altered.

It made a difference for my band, and certainly for many far more famous and successful bands, so perhaps tuning orchestral instruments down would likely have a similar impact on an orchestra's overall sound.


----------



## ptram (Dec 22, 2019)

Craig Duke said:


> Schumann Resonance, on average, is 7.83 Hz


Since the most common mystic number is 12, shouldn't we tune at A above middle C = 7.83 * 12 = 93.96 Hz?

Paolo


----------



## Monkey Man (Dec 22, 2019)

I thought the most-mystic numbers were 3 and 7. Shows what I know.


----------



## ptram (Dec 22, 2019)

Monkey Man said:


> I thought the most-mystic numbers were 3 and 7. Shows what I know.


Ok, so I should be A above middle C = 7.83 * 7 * 3 = 164.43 Hz.

(Was it A under middle C, it would be equivalent to A above middle C =328.86 Hz).

Paolo


----------



## Technostica (Dec 22, 2019)

Even if it was true many people would deny it because it doesn't fit into their world view; unless there was proof that fitted into their world view.
The current scientific world view can be just as dogmatic as religions at times.

I have no personal experience of this area so have no opinion of value to share.
It's ironic to me how often I see people who seem to think of themselves as being scientifically minded who share strongly held opinions about things they have not studied at all.
They confuse blind opinions, hearsay and prejudice for scientific truth.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

Technostica said:


> Even if it was true many people would deny it because it doesn't fit into their world view; unless there was proof that fitted into their world view.
> The current scientific world view can be just as dogmatic as religions at times.



This whole bogus topic isn't about scientific vs. unscientific world view etc.
It's about understanding what "tuning" means for the music.
It's a specific rate for a specific note.
Even if the frequency of 432 Hz has/had magic powers, it wouldn't have any benefit for a piece that takes it as base for its tuning. 
If you tune your piece in A=432 Hz and write a melody in Ab-major, the magic frequency isn't even there.
That's the underlying fact that debunks the whole stuff that is promoted by people who don't understand what "tuning" means. They think that a "tuning" is kind of an essence that is present in a piece that relies on that specific tuning.
On the other hand, in a microtonal piece that is tuned in A=440 Hz it may occur that the magic frequency appears all the time.


So, to make it simple:

If you believe in the "magic" power of the frequency of 432 Hz, tune a note to 432 Hz and let it play as long as you need to benefit from its healing energy. That's up to you.
But stop arguing with that whole dogma-religion-science stuff. It has nothing to do with it.

If you take a dog and call it a unicorn and then take it into a wood, there will not be a special "unicorn energy" in that wood. Regardless if you believe in science or an esoteric cult.


----------



## Technostica (Dec 22, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> This whole bogus topic isn't about scientific vs. unscientific world view etc. It's about understanding what "tuning" means for the music. It's a specific rate for a specific note. Even if the frequency of 432 Hz has/had magic powers, it wouldn't have any benefit for a piece that takes it as base for its tuning. If you tune your piece in A=432 Hz and write a melody in Ab-major, the magic frequency isn't even there. That's the underlying fact that debunks the whole stuff that is promoted by people who don't understand what "tuning" means. They think that a "tuning" is kind of an essence that is present in a piece that relies on that specific tuning.



I took it that the OP was talking about more than just 432Hz being a ‘healing frequency’ as they referenced A= 440Hz.
In that context I presumed they were referencing the ‘healing power’ of a scale related to that frequency as opposed to 440Hz.



KallumS said:


> Some people believe that using 432hz tuning over A=440hz illicits positive effects on the human psyche or even that it possesses healing powers.



If that is the case, I am not sure what scale is being referenced here that includes 432Hz?


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

Technostica said:


> I took it that the OP was talking about more than just 432Hz being a ‘healing frequency’ as they referenced A= 440Hz.
> In that context I presumed they were referencing the ‘healing power’ of a scale related to that frequency as opposed to 440Hz.



And i explained why the whole theory behind that concept is complete bogus, completely regardless of one's world view. It's a concept based on a misunderstanding/non-understanding.
Obviously you try to defend something based on the science-dogma-religion argument which you don't even understand as a concept.

If you have a bag with 88 stones and replace 1 one of them with a piece of gold, you'll still have 87 stones in there. Those stones wouldn't benefit in any relevant way from the presence of a piece of gold.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 22, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> Even if the frequency of 432 Hz has/had magic powers, it wouldn't have any benefit for a piece that takes it as base for its tuning.
> If you tune your piece in A=432 Hz and write a melody in Ab-major, the magic frequency isn't even there.
> That's the underlying fact that debunks the whole stuff that is promoted by people who don't understand what "tuning" means. They think that a "tuning" is kind of an essence that is present in a piece that relies on that specific tuning.
> On the other hand, in a microtonal piece that is tuned in A=440 Hz it may occur that the magic frequency appears all the time.


Without touching on whether a person believes in mystical properties 432 vs 440 etc, I do think it is important to understand that it isn't a linear extrapolation on 432hz itself that is the subject of the post. The idea is that the "seed tone" has a certain vibration. It is an anchor point in which all other tones are mathematically born in ratio to that tone. It is a lot like the white balance of a camera for photography/videography. If the white color temperature is set "correctly," the other colors appear correct to the human eye. The same could be said for the effect that tuning to a certain frequency could have.

Now there are other tangental topics regarding the vibratory characteristics of 432hz, 417hz, 528hz, etc... but I'll save that for another post if the time calls for it. But for now, think of 432hz vs 440hz as similar to the white balance of a camera. By having the white balance set to a different color temperature, it doesn't make the image any less representative to the image shot, it just is a different perspective to the same truth.


----------



## Technostica (Dec 22, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> If you have a bag with 88 stones and replace 1 one of them with a piece of gold, you'll still have 87 stones in there. Those stones wouldn't benefit in any relevant way from the presence of a piece of gold.



If you change the base frequency for a scale in the way that the OP implied then all the other notes have also changed.
So using your analogy, maybe you would be left with 88 pieces of gold?

Your posts explained nothing to me and I found your tone a bit unnecessarily sharp and not very healing.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

storyteller said:


> The idea is that the "seed tone" has a certain vibration. It is an anchor point in which all other tones are mathematically born in ratio to that tone.



That's why i have no (serious) problem with people who want to believe in the magic power of that seed tone itself.

But the assumption that a "mathematically born ratio" lets the other tones participate with that magic energy requires an additional dogma.
Even if you stick to a pure temperament (which btw will not give you a musical system that's based on the division of the octave in twelve notes.
But: Don't forget the temperament that is used is based on the square root of 12 and not on relations like 1:3 etc.
So, if you say the square root of 12 maintains an energy that turns your 79 stones (i make the octaves of the piece of gold = frequency of 432Hz) into gold, here comes the third required dogma.

And while you have cultures that believe in healing properties of specific frequencies, this whole 432 Hz bogus was brought up by a greedy pseudo esoteric industry constisting of people who are too stupid to understand the term "tuning"


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

Technostica said:


> Your posts explained nothing to me and I found your tone a bit unnecessarily sharp and not very healing.



You should give yourself more time to think about things that aren't clear.
My postings offer the information. To understand the information requires an input of the reader.


----------



## Technostica (Dec 22, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> You should give yourself more time to think about things that aren't clear.
> My postings offer the information. To understand the information requires an input of the reader.


If I want to take the time to investigate a fringe area I look for people who seem unbiased and are able to communicate in a calm and clear way without getting unduly emotional. I find that those that don’t often end up wasting a lot of time with their approach so I avoid wasting my time on them.

Richard Dawkins is a great example of someone I’d avoid if I’d want to explore worthwhile critiques of Religion.
It’s easy to shoot a fish in a barrel which is all some people are capable of and they sometimes like to make a big noise in doing so maybe even thinking we are impressed by their bluster.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

Technostica said:


> If I want to take the time to investigate a fringe area I look for people who seem unbiased and are able to communicate in a calm and clear way without getting unduly emotional.



It's not a question of having a "bias" if you come to a conclusion after examining the presented data.
(By the way, during the time of my studies i came across a lot of ethnological-musical concepts of different cultures concerning specific frequencies or root notes. See my postings above)

But you're right that i haven't written in a completely calm way. That's because i'm annoyed by those people who try to defend something _without_ fully understanding why the thing they defend is bogus.
And if you speak with somebody whose arguments you understand while he/she doesn't understand yours (and even thinks you don't understand him/her), things get annoying. But sorry, if you felt any aggression towards you... and of course it's a pity if you stop thinking about a thing because the information wasn't presented to you in a kind manner.

The comparison to Richard Dawkins speaking about religion is not only unfair but nasty.
Dawkins has never come across hermeneutics e.g. which would be required before speaking about religions. Neither has he grasped the relation between the perception (in _qualia_) and the consciousness which in fact invalidates the arguments of the new atheism (of course without validating religious believes on the other hand).

While i've just taken the concept of the 432-tuning without touching its core part and then analyzed it, showing why the concept is flawed.

---
That's it. Everything is said regarding this topic from my side.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 22, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> That's why i have no (serious) problem with people who want to believe in the magic power of that seed tone itself.
> 
> But the assumption that a "mathematically born ratio" lets the other tones participate with that magic energy requires an additional dogma.
> Even if you stick to a pure temperament (which btw will not give you a musical system that's based on the division of the octave in twelve notes.
> ...


Removing the idea of whether 432hz is "magical" or not for a moment... Wouldn't you agree that all tones played in ratio of A=440hz carry a particular sonic signature? Just like you would say they would all tones carry a certain sonic signature of A=432hz? Apply some adjectives to it. Does the note Bb sound more somber or more alive when A=440hz vs A=432hz? Sure, the latter part is a little subjective, but the idea is that the overall collection of tones would have a different sonic signature to it... just as a song is an ordered, pulsing collection of tones that create a certain signature from the available palette of tones.

To me it doesn't seem like it requires any additional dogma to understand that vibrations are all collectively affected by changing the anchor point, but perhaps I didn't quite understand where you were going with your reply (apologies if so). 

Now whether or not a person is aware enough to perceive those changes is another topic... But it should be no different than a videophile "seeing" things that the average person doesn't perceive, or an audiophile hearing sonic characteristics that the average person doesn't. It doesn't make those truths irrelevant or any more false. On the contrary, it should make people strive to understand what it is that others actually can "hear" or "see."

A great example is understanding the vibratory resonances in biology. Certain resonant tones can cause a material object to break (e.g. an opera singer belting out the resonant frequency of a pane of glass, it is the exact principle behind radiology of cancer cells). Likewise, certain frequencies cause material objects to vibrate in mathematical shapes and forms (e.g. see the videos on the science of Cymatics). It doesn't take much logic to connect how vibratory patterns of biology are affected by outside influences. So a collection of tones from a certain scale, frequency, and tuning can affect biology in different ways. It is why a song can make someone be moved emotionally. These influences have been studied in depth by science over the years and are used in practical medicine and theories today. It is how we get technology like "stealth" architecture for our military aircrafts.

Now without studying all of these concepts, it could be easy to default to "dogma"... but there is much to be understood outside of just the principles of math to begin to connect the dots of why people pile on the "magic of 432hz train." Admittedly, many people who preach about 432hz probably don't understand exactly why either.... but I'm trying to refrain from anything directly related to 432hz vs 440hz and instead focus on the principle of an "anchor point for the seed tone."


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

ok, very last post in this thread.



storyteller said:


> Removing the idea of whether 432hz is "magical" or not for a moment... Wouldn't you agree that all tones played in ratio of A=440hz carry a particular sonic signature?



of course, if you change the tuning, the characteristics change. But there are tolerances, and that's why all the following facts are _facts_:

Very often, people don't realize in discos that DJs changed the exact tuning of their favorite song by adjusting the speed to other tracks.

A capella choirs often rise or fall a wholetone step during singing a piece of music.

Composers like Bach or Haydn or Mozart didn't got sick when they had to work with organs in churches that were tuned in a different way (although all of them had a wonderful perfect pitch).

And there's also a reason why while there are meditation practices where the person gets an individual pitch, but after years still differs it depending to the state of his metabolism.

And while some people talk a lot about the specific character of a key in a movie score don't realize that it's a different one when watching the film on DVD (due to the 24 vs 25 frame rate. BTW that's not an issue any longer). They speak about the dark quality of d-Minor while listening to a piece in Eb-minor.

The exact perception of frequencies changes during the day, depending on what and how much you've eaten.
And the same note will sound different when you've just ran a marathon.

Of course there are semantic concepts of the characteristics of specific key, but also those aren't related to a specific tuning note. 

And then there are those "bioresonant" frequencies that are mentioned sometimes.
Also those aren't constant and have significant fluctuations/variations.

===

Last thing: 
Do you know the difference between A=440, A=415, A=392 and A=466?
There is none. All these tunings are the same (rounded of course to get round numbers)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 22, 2019)

I found this article enlightening:









Music Theory: 432 Hz - Separating Fact From Fiction


In exploring the 432 Hz debate at Ask.Audio, we soon realised this topic wasn't going to be resolved in one article. Here Assaf Dar Sagol explores the fact and



ask.audio





Bottom line, all the rumors you’ve heard are bunk.


----------



## d.healey (Dec 22, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Removing the idea of whether 432hz is "magical" or not for a moment... Wouldn't you agree that all tones played in ratio of A=440hz carry a particular sonic signature? Just like you would say they would all tones carry a certain sonic signature of A=432hz? Apply some adjectives to it. Does the note Bb sound more somber or more alive when A=440hz vs A=432hz? Sure, the latter part is a little subjective, but the idea is that the overall collection of tones would have a different sonic signature to it... just as a song is an ordered, pulsing collection of tones that create a certain signature from the available palette of tones.
> 
> To me it doesn't seem like it requires any additional dogma to understand that vibrations are all collectively affected by changing the anchor point, but perhaps I didn't quite understand where you were going with your reply (apologies if so).
> 
> ...


A fact can be a dangerous thing. Like handheld magnets affect iron, iron is in our blood, therefore a handheld magnet can affect our blood. Sounds logical until you understand magnetism.

This is a very common fallacy, similar to a syllogistic fallacy.

Yes all objects have a resonant frequency. That fact is completely unrelated to altering the tuning of a musical instrument by 8Hz, unless 432hz happens to correspond to the resonant frequency of a particular object that you're studying.

Audiophiles are not a good example, they are empirically biased and will definitely hear things that other people don't hear, whether those things exist or not. In fact it's not just audiophiles, it's all of us. Many times I've twiddled a mixer knob to get a sound just right, later realizing I was twiddling a knob that wasn't connected to anything, but it certainly sounded like it made a difference. Also the more expensive the audio cable the better the sound quality (even though it's digital).

If you have some empirical data to backup a 432hz claim then great, let's see it. Until then all I can say is I have seen/heard nothing to suggest anything significant about the 8hz difference. I'm not denying that there is something to it, but the burden of proof is on those making claims.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 22, 2019)

If there is any truth to there being some kind of resonant frequency of the universe at the quantum level, I don’t think we know what it is yet and even if we did, are you going to make music that only uses that exact frequency or certain multiples of it based on sacred geometry? You might be able to manage to do that if you can determine what that frequency is, if it even exists but it won’t be musically interesting. Equal temperament was introduced for more musical flexibility and tuning an equal temperament scale to A=432 or any other frequency that might be determined to be the frequency behind our matrix; would almost certainly not be based on equal temperament. You gain absolutely nothing by tuning your synths to 432 other then inconvenience.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 22, 2019)

d.healey said:


> A fact can be a dangerous thing. Like handheld magnets affect iron, iron is in our blood, therefore a handheld magnet can affect our blood. Sounds logical until you understand magnetism.
> 
> This is a very common fallacy, similar to a syllogistic fallacy.


Except it does... just not in the way you are presenting it. There are all sorts of factors such as the density and charge of iron particulates, the type/strength of the magnet, the testing theory/causation/outcome of such an experiment, etc. To say a handheld magnet does not affect the blood would be naive. Might it be negligible to none in apparent physiological manifestations for specific tests? Of course. But to say there is no effect is non-sensical. Ever been in an MRI machine? You definitely feel that if you are well attuned to your body as all matter has magnetic fields... iron is just one of the contributing pieces to our great physiological architecture/design.

Solar wind and ejections of polarized particles from the sun also cause all sorts of interplay on the body and serve as a factually-based antithesis to that statement. They affect manmade satellites as well as the Earth in major ways too. For example the frequency and severity of earthquakes can be correlated to Earth-facing coronal holes on the sun which are bombarding the Earth with bursts of polarized cosmic energy. This isn't pseudo-science. These factors are now being used in the weather/forecast models among other health-related studies right now.

But regarding whether 432 hz has empirical evidence... I wasn't speaking directly to that. As I stated in an earlier comment, 417hz is the anchor point that I personally believe to be the appropriate anchor for tunings. However, I would agree with others that 432hz likely has a more beneficial effect than 440hz based purely on pythagorean/einstein/tesla mathematics and pythagorean skeins for solfeggio numbers. 432 is a base-9 number whereas 440 is not. I could also argue that A=444hz might have certain befits that A=432hz might not (444 is a base-9 solfeggio number as well). But again, I didn't jump back in the thread to debate that portion. I just wanted to add additional insight as to how the OP's question of A=432hz can be likened to white-balancing in photography/videography in order help illuminate the content of the OPs question a bit more.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 22, 2019)

storyteller said:


> 432 is a base-9 number whereas 440 is not. I could also argue that A=444hz might have certain befits that A=432hz might not (444 is a base-9 solfeggio number as well).



But you know that the length of the second isn't a divine portion of time but rather an arbitrary one??
If we had a different length of a second, 432 would be a different number. Maybe it would be 416,009 Hz.
Also, if you keep the length of the second but change the reference tone (as i did above) you will get a completely different number.
Honestly, these arguments are so flawed, it's just no longer funny.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 22, 2019)

All of the reasonings about the number 432 being divisible by any other value are meaningless and are not in line with your previous paragraph. If there is some harmonic resonance in the world or the universe or our bodies, it is an absolute frequency, regardless of how you measure it. We happen to use seconds for time and cycles per second. So 432 is relative to that measurement of time...but if you changed the measurement to something else...then suddenly the number that represents that absolute harmonic frequency would not be 432 any more, it would be something else which may or may not be divisible by anything. See what I mean? You are conflating different concepts to make your story work, storyteller. You can't have it both ways. If you want to argue in terms of how 432 or 444 divides into many different things...ok...maybe some math might be interesting that way, but its all moot since you're using an arbitrary unit of measurement....the second. If you used a different unit of measurement, suddenly the same sonic frequency could be notated as 419.6723 or an other completely inconvenient numerical value. Its meaningless if you are attempting to relate it to some harmonic constant of the universe.

The earlier attempts by some to say the that earth has a harmonic frequency of 7 point whatever it is...is the closest thing you have to a measurable absolute frequency, but if you multiply that it doesn't work out to 432, it works out to 430 point something er other...another inconvenient numerical number if you are looking for magical numbers to evenly divide a lot of ways.

Its all a hoax!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 22, 2019)

exactly Living Fossil, you beat me to it.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 22, 2019)

and also please consider that if you are going to make western music on the 12 tones of equal temperament, then all justifications of how you would be using frequencies that harmonize with 432hz are also out the window.


----------



## dgburns (Dec 22, 2019)

Do I believe that 432 is something special? Has anyone looked at what the notes sit at freq wise? here is a site that lets you compare -





__





Frequencies of Musical Notes, A4 = 432 Hz






pages.mtu.edu





C4 is at 256.87 btw


----------



## d.healey (Dec 22, 2019)

storyteller said:


> Except it does...


Do you have any data to back that up?



> Might it be negligible to none in apparent physiological manifestations for specific tests? Of course.


If something is undetectable that doesn't mean it exists. We can't prove a negative.



> Ever been in an MRI machine?


I have not, but I was careful to say handheld magnet. However an MRI doesn't attract the iron in your blood either, because the iron in haemoglobin is not ferromagnetic.



> You definitely feel that if you are well attuned to your body as all matter has magnetic fields... iron is just one of the contributing pieces to our great physiological architecture/design.


Whatever you're feeling ain't your blood.



> Solar wind and ejections of polarized particles from the sun also cause all sorts of interplay on the body and serve as a factually-based antithesis to that statement.


I know nothing about this so I won't say you're wrong.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 22, 2019)

If there is any magical harmonic resonances that we might be able to harmonize with, IMHO it would be related to chakras and stuff like that. I do not think it would have anything to do with the vibration of the earth or iron in our blood.

Meta-physical religious ideas about chakras and consciousness are voodoo to some. But people that are in to that kind of thing talk a lot about how our heart is part of our conciousness. Buddist monks from Tibet have been meditating and making so called holy sounds for centuries. How did they determine the frequencies they are using? Who knows. Is it arbitrary? Who knows. They wouldn't say so. But basically when they meditate and focus on their chakras they are attempting to connect with the universe in some way. If there is some magical sonic frequency, we don't know what it is at this point in time, nor anything at all about how it would connect us with the universe or focus energy of the universe towards our heart...which would bring the kind of feeling people are hoping to find when they misguidedly attempt to tune to 432hz.

I am not going to deny the possibility that there might not be some magical sonic frequencies that at the quantum level seriously tune our consciousness into something somehow, though I would reckon they are not audible frequencies if they do exist...and as pointed out already..most likely do absolutely not resonate with equal temperament multipliers. If any of this is true about something like that, then we are completely off track with western 12 tone music and missing the mark completely, regardless of what frequency you use instead of A440.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 22, 2019)

A "second" is not arbitrary. It is a concept defined by divine ratios and proportions of spheres in a state of impossibly perfect existence... which in modern times, is now a calculation that has since been bastardized by modern scientific rationale about how to "prove" concepts based off measured three-dimensional proofs... a paradoxical rationale, riddled in illogic.

The same can be said about how ancient Solfeggio numbers first became identified and why they are important in their manifestation within the three-dimensional existence... hence why the writings and studies of our greatest ancient philosophers will be found at the core of the 432hz debate and dismissed by proponents of the prove-it-to-me-in-three-dimensional-constructs-without-philosophical-references-mentality.


----------



## purple (Dec 22, 2019)

I don't really care what sort of hippie bullshit or conspiracy theories people believe, whether it's some magical tuning frequency, or creationism, or astrology, or flat earth, as long as they are not teaching children that stuff.


----------



## purple (Dec 22, 2019)

storyteller said:


> A "second" is not arbitrary. It is a concept defined by divine ratios and proportions of spheres in a state of impossibly perfect existence... which in modern times, is now a calculation that has since been bastardized by modern scientific rationale about how to "prove" concepts based off measured three-dimensional proofs... a paradoxical rationale, riddled in illogic.
> 
> The same can be said about how ancient Solfeggio numbers first became identified and why they are important in their manifestation within the three-dimensional existence... hence why the writings and studies of our greatest ancient philosophers will be found at the core of the 432hz debate and dismissed by proponents of the prove-it-to-me-in-three-dimensional-constructs-without-philosophical-references-mentality.


Seconds only make "physical" sense on earth... Are you saying there would be a different magical tuning pitch for Martian colonists?


----------



## Quasar (Dec 22, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> But you know that the length of the second isn't a divine portion of time but rather an arbitrary one??
> If we had a different length of a second, 432 would be a different number. Maybe it would be 416,009 Hz.
> Also, if you keep the length of the second but change the reference tone (as i did above) you will get a completely different number.
> Honestly, these arguments are so flawed, it's just no longer funny.


Just because humankind comes up with arbitrary units of measurements, this does not mean that divine units do not exist. The Planck length, or Planck time (the amount of time it takes light to transverse a Planck length) are apparently fundamental, and the math that assumes the specific value of this Planck constant has led to the most empirically successful theory (QM) in the history of Western science. Not so dissimilarly, AUM was identified in ancient India as the fundamental vibration by which the Supreme Spirit brings all that is observable into being...

...Should the culture of mainstream science ever get past its crude and provincial physicalist fundamentalism, it might actually begin to learn how to interpret its own data beyond implications that are merely mechanistic, and actually gleam wisdom from the many discoveries it has made. I am not optimistic in this regard, however, at least not in the foreseeable future. Deep-seated prejudices on cosmological scales, however delusional, are terribly difficult to break free from. It generally takes at least centuries, if not millennia.

Even if you look at it on the mainstream Darwinian level, it's pretty obvious that our species has not evolved to discern what is true, as natural selection does not favor this. Rather, we tend to interpret "reality" via the anthropocentric filters that foster procreation and survival, and then generate our more abstract notions about reality's character from presumptions borne out of this limited and biased starting place.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 22, 2019)

purple said:


> Seconds only make "physical" sense on earth... Are you saying there would be a different magical tuning pitch for Martian colonists?


You are blurring several concepts - understandably it is a very, very difficult concept to grasp. The measurement of a second is absolute in design, but relative to the locale of existence. For example, a "second" is probably best defined as 1/5th of 1/12th of the revolution of a sphere (regardless of how big or small that sphere is). In modern times, a second is defined as "1/60th of a minute." A minute is 1/60th of an hour. An hour is 1/24th of a day. and so on. Basically, everything is a subdivision of twelve (or twenty-four, or sixty depending on your viewpoint). So, in practical terms, one second on Earth is 1/86400 of a day.

In your example, a second on Mars SHOULD also be1/86400 of a Martian day if measured RELATIVELY. However, because Earthlings have decided their truth is absolute, then "timekeeping on Mars" would likely mean a day on Mars consists of roughly twenty-four hours and forty minutes of Earth time. This would mean a second on Mars would be 1/88800 of a day when measured ABSOLUTE to an Earth day.

A "hertz" is unit of measurement defined as "a cycle per second." So, tuning one note on a piano on Mars SHOULD abide by the same RELATIVE laws that govern Earth if using 86400 seconds in a day. This means that a note tuned to A=440hz on Mars would not sound like A=440hz on Earth if somehow a person were able to listen to both simultaneously FROM ONE LOCATION's PERSPECTIVE. However, relatively speaking, if a person with perfect pitch were able to transport themselves between planets and listen to A=440hz on Mars and then listen to A=440hz on Earth (again when tuned RELATIVELY), in theory there should be no difference at all in the pitch.

However, it gets strange to think about the reverse. If the notes are tuned ABSOLUTE to Earth's linear interpretation of the measurement of a second, then it would be similar to transferring a perfectly tuned piano between two planets and then playing the notes simultaneously to determine the difference. Again, in theory, if a person were to be able to hear the pitch simultaneously while embodied on two planets but interpret it from ONE LOCATION's PERSPECTIVE, the pitches would not sound the same. They would be vibrating at different resonances due to the relative spin from each location.

Admittedly, this is difficult to understand because it is impossible to reproduce this exact test since it requires the physicality of a person to be in two places simultaneously but interpreting from one perspective WITHOUT BEING LOCATED IN JUST ONE PERSPECTIVE. The same results cannot be duplicated by transmitting the sound between two places with devices since the interpretation of the transmitting device would occur in one place rather than two places simultaneously. It is a mind-bender for sure, but this is part of the concept of relativity and why philosophy is required.

It is a similar concept as to how a person can board a rocket ship leaving Earth, accelerate to light speed and return to Earth for what may seem only like a few relative years later to the traveler, only to discover that generations of people and centuries on Earth may have come and gone during that same time period.

As to whether there is a different "magical tuning pitch for Martian colonists..."
The same fundamental argument would take place on Mars as it is happening on Earth. Whether A=440Hz or A=432hz would still need to assume both tunings are measured relative to Martian time (e.g. 86400 martian seconds in a day, not 88800 seconds). So, overall, it would be the same argument. Though, if agents of Earth tried to force-feed Earth-based absolute measurements on Martians... that would be another argument entirely.

Furthermore, the "anchor tone" for how the note A is defined is further defined by dimensional existence, etc. But again, that is another topic, another conversation...

Hope that helps clarify some more.


----------



## Cinebient (Dec 22, 2019)

Personally no but i believe that others do and accept that.
I mean there are also flat earth believers. 
But as with many other things i believe in science and facts...so if there are any serious.
So far i saw nothing which makes really sense and is more a kind of esoteric.


----------



## Monkey Man (Dec 22, 2019)

ptram said:


> Ok, so I should be A above middle C = 7.83 * 7 * 3 = 164.43 Hz.
> 
> (Was it A under middle C, it would be equivalent to A above middle C =328.86 Hz).
> 
> Paolo


Correct.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 23, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Just because humankind comes up with arbitrary units of measurements, this does not mean that divine units do not exist. The Planck length, or Planck time (the amount of time it takes light to transverse a Planck length) are apparently fundamental, and the math that assumes the specific value of this Planck constant has led to the most empirically successful theory (QM) in the history of Western science.



I wasn't referring to the Planck length but to seconds. 
That's typical for unreliable esotericism: Defending nonsense with something different.



Quasar said:


> ...Should the culture of mainstream science ever get past its crude and provincial physicalist fundamentalism, it might actually begin to learn how to interpret its own data beyond implications that are merely mechanistic, and actually gleam wisdom from the many discoveries it has made.



As i pointed out: a flawed nonsense theory is completely independent from your believe system.
You may be a ultra-mystical person who is absolutely not in the canon of the culture of mainstream science: This doesn't turn a bogus nonsensense theory that's based on logical errors into truth.
In this case (the 432Hz tuning nonsense), there are so many logical flaws that it's simply unnecessary to continue to discuss.

Merry christmas!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

storyteller said:


> You are blurring several concepts -



I think you are. hehe



> understandably it is a very, very difficult concept to grasp



apparently.



> . The measurement of a second is absolute in design, but relative to the locale of existence. For example, a "second" is probably best defined as 1/5th of 1/12th of the revolution of a sphere (regardless of how big or small that sphere is). In modern times, a second is defined as "1/60th of a minute." A minute is 1/60th of an hour. An hour is 1/24th of a day. and so on. Basically, everything is a subdivision of twelve (or twenty-four, or sixty depending on your viewpoint). So, in practical terms, one second on Earth is 1/86400 of a day.




You are again conflating two different things....time and space.

Really, aren't you getting tired of spending so much time writing nonsense?

in terms of space, our globe is divided into 360 degrees with 3600 angular seconds per degree. which doing the math is 1,296,000 seconds around the globe, not 86,400. 86,400 is the number of "seconds" in time it takes to rotate that sphere. That number exists only because our planet happens to be rotating at some rate and we have decided to divide that time into 84600 discrete units of time, called seconds...which is as you say 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds. so our notion of a "second" of time still happens to be some consistent amount of time.

There are some interesting bits of math in there. It takes 240 seconds of time for the earth to rotate one degree, for example.

In any case sound frequency is based on time. It is number of cycles per second of _time. _

it sounds like you are suggesting that planets of a different radius would have vastly different concepts of time and thus vastly differently perceptions of sonic frequencies, which I find absurd.

Yes, if you wanted to divide up the amount of time it happens to take to rotate mars once around into 86400 discrete units of time, then a second of time on mars would be vastly different then a second of time on earth....as measuring units. But sonic frequencies don't magically change to sound the same at 432hz based on different units of time.

This is absurdity.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> I think you are. hehe
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Time and Space are both inherently critical to understand when dealing with anything involving physics, science, and interpretation of math. There was a hypothetical question posed about Martian sound to which I shared a perspective in answering the question... a perspective you say is absurd when you are presently unable to grasp the physics and relativity models in a single state of existence on Earth... so of course it is much more complex and requires much more brainwork to digest. That doesn't make it absurd, though. Reading knee-jerk responses are part of what makes sharing anything useful seem like an ill-fated effort in futility. Perhaps someone will gain something from it though.

You are correct there is a linear way to measure circumnavigation of the Earth. That isn't what was referred to in my post. My response dealt with resonant philosophy based on relativity, which is directly tied to spin, rotation, philosophical units of measurement rather than linear measurements, gravity, and the speed of light among other things. You would need to study way much more than a few cliff's-notes posts on a forum to be brought up to speed on the relativistic reality we all are experiencing.

Regarding...


Dewdman42 said:


> it sounds like you are suggesting that planets of a different radius would have vastly different concepts of time and thus vastly differently perceptions of sonic frequencies, which I find absurd.



To the individual experiencing it, they may not perceive the difference. That doesn't make it absurd. Spin, mass, gravity... these are all things that distort the cosmos into what we call the experience of each individual. Every distortion and perturbation of All That Is does affect the experience from an omniscient viewpoint, though. These are the principles of *relativity* and why I shared the philosophical definition to the measurement of a second as a unit of time in contradiction to @Living Fossil's argument that a second is an arbitrary measurement defined by some dude throwing darts at a wall of choices.

A fun book to read on philosophical conundrums such as these is *Einstein's Dreams*. It is a short 80-page collection of short stories that open the mind to seeing the world through multiple perspectives.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

Einstein also spoke about spooky action and other things he didn’t understand. Modern quantum physics is calling into question some of his theory in fact. The truth is we still only have mathematical theories about the nature of the universe and we really don’t know.

regardless, you are still conflating space and time to suit your own absurd notions about tuning A to 432hz, which is a measuremebt of time, not spacetime. And you have still avoided the question numerous times about equal temperament in western 12 tone music, which utterly renders all theories about special relativity and space time or sacred geometries irrelevant.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> And you have still avoided the question numerous times about equal temperament in western 12 tone music, which utterly renders all theories about special relativity and space time or sacred geometries irrelevant.


Then by all means, dismiss Einstein's relevance too. That about sums up your comments in this thread. There is no conflation on my part...

And I haven't avoided talking about equal temperament either. In fact I've written numerous books on this subject matter and have made available free PDFs of these specific topics on the Sonalkiss website. Earlier in this thread I offered to give away free copies of the books should someone want to read them. I think that is quite the opposite of avoidance... But replying to each of your comments has been like voluntarily grinding my face against concrete. I really do enjoy sharing concepts such as these with those that seek to understand them, which is why I've replied to this thread. I'm happy to answer your questions as well... when you actually have a question. But when you present your statements as fact when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary that you refuse to acknowledge or explore, then there is no sense in me responding. You can't fill a cup that is already full. The goal is to have a cup that always has room for more.

That said, if you want to explore something fun with this concept you can download the Sonalkiss: Primordial Sounds of Creation Kontakt instrument that I have made freely available on the Storyteller Store website and check out the accompanying documentation.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

I am sincerely interested in any book you have written on this topic.

still, you haven't explained here how tuning A to 432hz has any relevance at all.

Hey, if this superstition helps you feel creative and do amazing things with music I have nothing against it.


----------



## Quasar (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> You are again conflating two different things....time and space.



Time and space are two different things? Einstein's special theory of relativity says otherwise, and the consensus among physicists ever since is that it consists of one 4 dimensional fabric.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

no it does not. Time and space are different dimensions. "spacetime" is the combination of the two. Time is not the same as spacetime. Space is not the same as spacetime. Time is not the same as space. Per the previous conversation that you are recklessly commenting about now, seconds of an arc are not the same as seconds of time. Totally different things that happen to have the same name.


----------



## Quasar (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> no it does not. Time and space are different dimensions. "spacetime" is the combination of the two. Time is not the same as spacetime. Space is not the same as spacetime. Time is not the same as space. Per the previous conversation that you are recklessly commenting about now, seconds of an arc are not the same as seconds of time. Totally different things that happen to have the same name.



LOL, you don't have to believe Einstein's take on the fabric of the universe if you don't want to. But I'm out anyway. I have absolutely no opinion on 440 vs 432 whatsoever, and admit that I merely hopped onto the subject in order to challenge the prevailing atheistic materialism that is killing our planet, which I feel called-upon to do whenever the opportunity arises. God bless and Happy Xidays!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

identifying space and time as different things is not disbelieving Einstein's take on the fabric of the universe, it is in fact clarifying it!!! I'm certainly not saying he was totally wrong either. There are many things theorized by Einstein that have been corroborated by tests literally thousands of times. Just as was the case with Newton. However, there are things he himself never fully got answers for, and quantum physicists are continually raising questions and points that challenge SOME of Einsteins theories. Einstein himself even said there were still holes. The truth is, we don't really know that much about the fabric of the universe. Spacetime is just one little way of thinking about it.

Quasar, I said earlier and I will say again, I am totally open to the possibility that there could be some harmonic resonances that at the quantum level might resonate with our soul or consciousness. Its just that the 432hz hysteria isn't it! And most likely if we ever do discover something along those lines, it will almost certainly not be 12 tone western music.


----------



## Quasar (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> identifying space and time as different things is not disbelieving Einstein's take on the fabric of the universe, it is in fact clarifying it!!! I'm certainly not saying he was totally wrong either. There are many things theorized by Einstein that have been corroborated by tests literally thousands of times. Just as was the case with Newton. However, there are things he himself never fully got answers for, and quantum physicists are continually raising questions and points that challenge SOME of Einsteins theories. Einstein himself even said there were still holes. The truth is, we don't really know that much about the fabric of the universe. Spacetime is just one little way of thinking about it.
> 
> Quasar, I said earlier and I will say again, I am totally open to the possibility that there could be some harmonic resonances that at the quantum level might resonate with our soul or consciousness. Its just that the 432hz hysteria isn't it! And most likely if we ever do discover something along those lines, it will almost certainly not be 12 tone western music.


We probably don't disagree that much... You're right, spacetime is an analogy, just as Newtons "force" of gravity is an analogy, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an expression of probability, not a "law" that must be obeyed. These are all ideas presented as ways to think about phenomena that arise in our field of consciousness, and nothing more... And I quite agree that our 12 tone scale is a man-made artifact, much like the seconds and minutes of a clock. Once you get into the whole Equal Temperament issue this only becomes more than obvious.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 24, 2019)

Quasar said:


> It generally takes at least centuries, if not millennia.


Deep-sounding mumbo-jumbo. Who are you trying to impress? I thought you were done talking about that here? 

The caricature of the ‘scientific method’, that you have in your mind when you attack it, leads you to stupid conclusions. The conspicuous you-figured-it-all-out-attitude might make you feel good about yourself (don’t lie: you know it does), but it’s all a just hodgepodge of amateur philosophemes that mistakes itself for wisdom. Sad to watch, really, and I still hope you grow out of it, for it is not healthy.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 24, 2019)

storyteller said:


> The measurement of a second is absolute in design, but relative to the locale of existence. For example, a "second" is probably best defined as 1/5th of 1/12th of the revolution of a sphere (regardless of how big or small that sphere is). In modern times, a second is defined as "1/60th of a minute." A minute is 1/60th of an hour. An hour is 1/24th of a day. and so on. Basically, everything is a subdivision of twelve (or twenty-four, or sixty depending on your viewpoint). So, in practical terms, one second on Earth is 1/86400 of a day.



While this is a really interesting thing of understanding seconds per se, it has one huge flaw:
The "revolution of the earthly" sphere doesn't last 24 hours, as most people think.
It lasts 23 h 56 m and 4 seconds. (in average)
When counting days, 4 minutes are added to compensate for the fact that there is a shift in the position towards the sun - i.e. to be able to count from "the sun at its highest point" to "the sun at its highest point" again.
But also this is on average and by no means exact...Neither is this exactly 86400 seconds (from time to time, seconds are added to avoid a shift) nor is in perfectly constant. Earth isn't perfectly shaped and has some aleatoric stuff going on regarding the distribution of weights on it and this causes permanent fluctuations.

However, when we really stick to the concept that a second is a 1/86400 - which looks wonderful as a proportion - then the length of a second is shorter.
And what we call 432 Hz now, would equal to approx. 430,8 Hz then (with the approx. correct length of a second = base of Hertz).
_[Double-Edit: i had mixed it up previously. However, what would be 432 Hz according to those shorter seconds, would equal approx. 433 Hz with "our" seconds.]_


Sadly, this will destroy the whole mumbo jumbo numberal mystics regarding the conceptual part where "432 can be divided by 9".
Because neither 430,8 nor 433 can't.

Now, i'm sure, the charlatan industry will find a way to "fix" this destroyed conceptual theoretical building.
If you add and subtract numbers for enough time in several random patterns you will always (without any exception) get _magical _numbers. And you can do it for decades, even for a thousand years of your lifetime and write it down in hundreds of thousands of books to milk millions of lunatics who desperately try to find a stable anchor in their life.
And that's even ok.

What is not ok is that this charlatan industry uses its nonsense to also milk people with serious diseases.
They promiss "healing energies" to cancer patients etc.
And at that point it gets blatantly disgusting.

However, merry christmas to everyone!


----------



## Cinebient (Dec 24, 2019)

42 is the answer. Why?
Because 4 + 2 = 6, 6 * 72 = 432, 432 - 72 = 360, 360 * 72 = 25.920, 2 + 5 + 9 + 20 = 36
36 + 42 = 78, 78 * 10 = 780, 780 : 2 = 390, 390 + 42 = 432 :emoji_astonished:


----------



## Takabuntu (Dec 24, 2019)

I don't. Merry Christmas!


----------



## storyteller (Dec 24, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> While this is a really interesting thing of understanding seconds per se, it has one huge flaw:
> The "revolution of the earthly" sphere doesn't last 24 hours, as most people think.
> It lasts 23 h 56 m and 4 seconds. (in average)
> When counting days, 4 minutes are added to compensate for the fact that there is a shift in the position towards the sun - i.e. to be able to count from "the sun at its highest point" to "the sun at its highest point" again.
> ...


You are certainly correct. And I absolutely agree with you on these points. However, the philosophy I am sharing regarding seconds is based on the measurement of spheres in an impossibly perfect, equidistant space. It is similar to the concept of "squaring the circle" which cannot be performed with an Earthly effort. In the human experience, all of creation has imperfections thus we have philosophical conundrums like "squaring the circle." These conundrums are formed due to our existence being founded on a state of perspective that appears linear and absolute, even though it is spherical and relative. In fact, a computer cannot even properly render a sphere perfectly, much less calculate everything in a "perfect space" because the programming is based off of a subset of this perfection.

But when one is able to delve into the calculations of equidistance, spheres, and perfection then apply it to the three-dimensional experience, then we get concepts such as "seconds" and such that do indeed seem to be arbitrary by linear measurement in a three-dimensional space. Yet, in an impossibly perfect scenario (which is the state of All That Is, the Primordial Everything), the calculations work exactly as expected. So basically what I am trying to share is that for one to understand the physics, math, and science of three dimensional constructs, then these same constructs have to be studied in a perfect state of existence and then applied to the imperfect subset in which we live... not the other way around. This is what creates confusion and arguments on behalf of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians. Modern minds want to use "what we know" as a baseline whereas the greatest minds that have contributed the founding principles to "what we know" all used the philosophy of studying an impossibly-perfect All That Is and then applying it to "what we know" and "what we don't." It might sound confusing, but it takes the study of both the three-dimensional experience and the study of the perfect, Equidistant Bouquet to bridge the philosophical conundrum that exists when only studying one side or the other. This is where Base-10 vs Base-9 (etc) comes into play.

*And Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah to all as well! Hope everyone's holidays are full of friends, family, and Love.*


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 24, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> [Edit: i had it the other way round earlier and had written 430,8 Hz instead. Shorter seconds increase the number of Hz...however, in both cases it leads to the same conclusion]


I think your initial thought was correct: if a second is shorter, you need slightly less oscillations per second (=Hertz) for reaching the same frequency/note.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 24, 2019)

storyteller said:


> However, the philosophy I am sharing regarding seconds is based on the measurement of spheres in an impossibly perfect, equidistant space.


Wait, that makes impossibly perfect sense! 
But the benefits of tuning to 432 Hz, even based on arbitrary/imperfect units of measurement, still apply, right?
I’d call that royal BS. 
A merry Christmas/Hanukkah/whatever-you-celebrate to you too, though!


----------



## Quasar (Dec 24, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> Deep-sounding mumbo-jumbo. Who are you trying to impress? I thought you were done talking about that here?
> 
> The caricature of the ‘scientific method’, that you have in your mind when you attack it, leads you to stupid conclusions. The conspicuous you-figured-it-all-out-attitude might make you feel good about yourself (don’t lie: you know it does), but it’s all a just hodgepodge of amateur philosophemes that mistakes itself for wisdom. Sad to watch, really, and I still hope you grow out of it, for it is not healthy.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 24, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> Wait, that makes impossibly perfect sense!
> But the benefits of tuning to 432 Hz, even based on arbitrary/imperfect units of measurement, still apply, right?
> I’d call that royal BS.
> A merry Christmas/Hanukkah/whatever-you-celebrate to you too, though!


This is why philosophy is important. If you read up on Solfeggio numbers, you will see that they are a series of Base-9 numbers that are unique... somewhat like Prime numbers, but with a different purpose. They were most recently identified by Pythagoras, though Sonchis de Sais was also responsible for this knowledge before him. "432" is probably best understood as a sequence and an anchor point, rather than the debatable interpretation that 432hz has magical properties. *But 432hz (as well as 444, 417, etc) might also be best understood in the three dimensional space as a harmonic representation of perfection that can resonate through the imperfect space we exist within.* Now, for 432 to have any relevance, you would be correct to think that our forms of linear measurement must be based on this impossibly-perfect architecture... The good news, is that it mostly is! Our units of measurement were chosen for specific reasons despite third-dimensional logic suggesting otherwise. It is actually why we have metric and imperial units as well. Both forms of measurement are important to understand the ratios of the impossibly-perfect in our distorted-third-dimensional perspective. It is just much more multi-faceted than the one-dimensional methods that have been taught in recent centuries.

Anyway, hopefully you can see that fundamentally there is much more to 432 philosophically and mathematically than just a linear measurement with linear results. It is a concept that requires much more study than just a few posts here. And as I've stated numerous times, 417hz is the appropriate anchor point for tunings... though 444hz and 432hz have respectable rationale for usage as well.

But FWIW, I personally just keep all of my instruments in A=440 since it is the simple thing to do.


----------



## ethanay (Dec 24, 2019)

Sebastianmu said:


> If you’d care to explain what ‘logically incoherent irony’ and/or ‘empirically-specious irony’ could possibly be?
> (I _do_ like that you felt compelled to write this as your second-message-ever in these very forums: A warm welcome to you, dear!)



Thanks for the response, gives me all the info I need to make the decision I need to make.


----------



## Technostica (Dec 24, 2019)

Isn’t science usually more about observation, postulating theories and testing those theories?
So you can’t usually prove a theory either way without testing it.
Who here has actually tested the ‘supposed powers of 432Hz’ tuning?


----------



## ethanay (Dec 24, 2019)

C'mon, you missed SRV! I feel the same except if I am playing in DADGAD. That tuning seems to take care of the tension/timbre issues itself, which is I think one reason why it is so popular and effective for solo fingerstyle work.



NekujaK said:


> There are numerous examples of notable guitarists/bands who did this (Kurt Cobain, Billy Corgan, EVH, Alice in Chains), and nowadays, even more extreme down-tunings are almost de rigueur among heavy metal guitarists - although they often compensate with heavier guage strings and purpose-built guitars.


----------



## ethanay (Dec 24, 2019)

Technostica said:


> Isn’t science usually more about observation, postulating theories and testing those theories?
> So you can’t usually prove a theory either way without testing it.
> Who here has actually tested the ‘supposed powers of 432Hz’ tuning?



What is the null hypothesis, experiment and control? There are so many possibilities...for someone who cares enough!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 24, 2019)

or......

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/number-137-physics


----------



## Mark Schmieder (Dec 25, 2019)

417 Hz is (im)perfectly Baroque!

I actually enjoy Baroque tunings; especially on those instruments. 432 Hz, not so much.


----------

