Wiardgroup

Actually, the more I think about it, it is so obvious as to be hard to see.

Most physical instruments have more dimensions than are recorded.

A drum is a 4 dimensional instrument, which is reduced to a two dimensional projection 
by the recording process. This could suggest why they are so difficult to record well.

I think the brain produces a lot of "data enhancement" by triggering multidimensional 
memories from the two dimensional input "cues".

Physically, we can't make an 11 dimensional "tone wheel", but you can with a mathematical 
model. A spherical tone wheel is even easy to visualize.

It does suggest that the ear can detect the number of degrees of freedom in the original 
source, from the projection.

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "drmabuce" <drmabuce@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gregg
> Abbot's (what an ironic surname) book is a treasure! The only guy i've
> ever met who ACTUALLY grasps string theories uses it to teach about
> simultaneity in a grad-school physiscs class!
> it's fun to watch physicists go after one another about how to explain
>   particle behavior that 'appears' to operate outside of linear time.
> These brouhahas (comically called conferences) get ALMOST as
> entertaining as discussions of panel features.
> 
> ("who will prove the proofs themselves")
> -Rube Godel
> 
> ;'>
> -doc
> 
> 
> 
> --- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "mrboningen"
> <darkflametwentythree@> wrote:
> >
> > and for those of us who shun the technical side, there are some truly
> > great explanations of "projection", as well as thoughts on the more
> > religious/spritual aspects, in edwin a. abbot's book "flatland". find
> > out how A. Square (who lives in a two dimensinal reality) deals with
> > life when proof of a third dimension comes his way!
> > 
> > gregg
> > 
> > --- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Grant Richter" <grichter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is one thing to have the intuition that audio can be described by
> > a terrain oscillator 
> > > tracing overlapping projections of higher dimensional objects on a
> > plane. It is another 
> > > thing to build it in analog. Or prove it or calculate it. It does
> > relate sound back to 
> > > geometry.
> > > 
> > > Still, geometry is a lot of fun to study. If someone wants to lend
> > me a copy of the original 
> > > folio of J.F. Nicerons "Thaumaturgus Opticus" (1649) it would help
> > (pretty seminal on 
> > > anamorphic projection). Oops, Vatican has it...
> > > 
> > > "Projection" is a way of expressing higher di
> 
> 
> mension objects in a
> > lower dimension. A 
> > > geometric analog of mixing, as an example because you can not
> > generate a full original 
> > > from only information contained in shadows. (a projection is the
> > shadow of a higher 
> > > dimension geometrical object which is veiwable in a lower dimension).
> > > 
> > > I'll have to settle for the works of Claude Bragdon such as this:
> > > 
> > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/048627117X/
> > > ref=sr_11_1/104-0050071-2953569?%5Fencoding=UTF8
> > > 
> > > I was so excited, then I found out he wrote the intro to the
> > "Tertium Organum".
> > > Up here in Wisconsin you know we have Lawsonomy. Also very
> > geometric, "The Law of the 
> > > Zig-Zag and Swirl" for example.
> > > 
> > > Apparently, studying geometry above 3 dimensions makes you start a
> > religion, so begin 
> > > tithing now and beat the rush!
> > > 
> > > Number Theory may be the Grande Dame of mathematics, but Geometry
> > sure is the pretty 
> > > looking one. Now someone tell me there is a one to one
> > correspondence between number 
> > > theory and geometry... (I recall something about unification).
> > >
> >
>