1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 196617-90040

Take it on faith: A cease-and-desist letter to those who only believe in measurements

Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). Faith is often considered to be distinct from and even contrary to science. I argue science is based on faith. Specifically, it is faith in the belief that measurements are always correct, and they alone can reveal the world around us. However, there is no evidence that this approach will always provide a correct and complete depiction of our environment.

I am not anti-science. In fact, I am all about science. I was a science major in college. I taught high school biology and chemistry. I employ science every day in my current career. I also use it to make decisions when it comes to audio, and I can point to a scientific basis behind my equipment decisions, speaker/listener locations and room treatment. I believe John Locke’s scientific method is a wonderful boon to mankind.  But although data may rule my life, I know that science has its limitations.

The scientific method is an empirical approach and relies on our eight senses or extensions thereof to measure phenomena, enabling us to better understand and control our environment. People who embrace this approach believe if something cannot be measured, it cannot exist. They have total faith in this approach and deny the credibility of others whose senses do not or cannot yield something in units. In essence, these disciples take it on faith that measurements are the only true way to make sense of the world. However, we just may not have developed the instrument that enables us to measure the event. Early digital is a good example of our senses superseding the limitations of our understanding of the technology and hence, our measurements. Other examples of this include our past beliefs that we could destroy mass, that the earth is flat, and the universe is not expanding. And cables and amplifiers all sound the same.

Others find their senses can reveal events that are not apparent to some and may not even be measurable. Some people can smell faint odors or feel a slight breeze that others cannot.  My wife can find a Petoskey stone on a beach out of thousands of rocks; I cannot see it even when I am standing over it. Different cables, fuses, amplifier topology, or cartridge design may or may not result in the same or even any data points and may or may not sound alike. But just because you cannot hear a difference nor measure a difference does not mean there is no difference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as good sound may be in their ear.

Some of us have at least as much faith in our ears as we do in our REW software and associated hardware. I start room setup with acoustic theory and then confirm with measurements, but the final placement is always a result of what sounds most pleasing. I would not know how to determine speaker toe-in using a microphone.

While I will always have to trust my senses, I am not handicapped by relying solely on those that are associated with a number.

 “…not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron, 1963

tcutter
kevemaher's avatar
kevemaher
424 posts
 

@hilde45 

Valid points. 

I see physics from a technical viewpoint rather than a more philosophical one. Just my nature. 

I have read a bit about the history of physics. The debate about Heisenberg's principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics began almost right after he published it. 

CI says that a system not disturbed by outside influences can be described by waveforms (a la Schrodinger equation). Solutions for this equation (for example: a single electron orbiting a single proton) indicate that there are many states the electron can occupy. An "observation" causes this electron (and its wave equation) to "collapse" to the result we see. There was a huge fight over this. Einstein was horrified. Schrodinger, the inventor of the equation, did not go along with this interpretation. It is still the most accepted explanation and continues to be taught today.

One of the most promising alternate explanations is the "Many Worlds" hypothesis which postulates that all possible solutions can and do exist. However, we can only experience one solution. The others, although they exist, are not accessible to us. Schrodinger's "Cat in the Box" thought experiment illustrates this conundrum quite nicely.

Physics has a hard time with this one. You'd think we would have figured this out after 100 years, but no, we haven't.

It is one of the most puzzling topics in physics :  What is an "observer"? A Human? An Instrument? Ethereal Spirits? My Dog? The current thinking is that anything that disturbs a system is an observer. This remains contentious.

Quantum Mechanics does a wonderful job explaining microscopic phenomena. It provides accurate, useful calculations that match observations. Some theoretical calculations have predicted observed phenomena (damn, that word again) to six sigma accuracy. It is the best theory the scientific community has.

We need @mahgister to sort this out for us!

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,052 posts
 

i am not a physicist... smiley

On this issue i go behind Penrose opinion and theory ORCH...

Why ? 

Because i know for sure that there exist a cosmic information field , which is visible in the arithmetic world of the real numbers as a figment of the P-Adic world...I discovered this long ago trying to figure out number theory and set theory......

There is a mathematician i discovered  exploring this : Shai Haran, a genius, "the mysteries of the real prime"... The book is hard to understand even for a mathematician... smiley

 

«Roger Penrose’s understanding of quantum mechanics centers on the idea that wave function collapse isn’t just about observation but is a real, objective physical process linked to gravity, a phenomenon he calls Objective Reduction (OR), suggesting current QM is incomplete and leads to a "double ontology" issue. He proposes that this gravitational collapse resolves superpositions in a time-dependent, objective way, potentially explaining consciousness through quantum processes in brain microtubules (Orch OR theory) and bridging QM with General Relativity. 

 
Here are the key aspects:
 
  • Incompleteness of Standard QM: Penrose argues standard quantum mechanics fails to explain why wave functions collapse, treating it as observer-dependent or relying on flawed logical steps (the "double ontology").
  • Objective Reduction (OR): He posits a new physical principle where a quantum superposition is inherently unstable and collapses due to spacetime curvature differences. When a system reaches a certain threshold of gravitational self-energy, it objectively reduces.
  • Gravity-Induced Collapse: This collapse isn’t a choice but a physical event driven by gravity, occurring rapidly and objectively, even without an observer.
  • Consciousness Link (Orch OR): In his theory with Stuart Hameroff, quantum computations within brain microtubules (protein structures) undergo these gravitational OR events, providing a non-algorithmic basis for consciousness.
  • Non-Algorithmic Consciousness: Penrose believes consciousness involves non-computable processes, meaning it can’t be replicated by classical computers, and quantum gravity effects are the missing ingredient. 
  •  
In essence, Penrose sees quantum mechanics as needing a fundamental revision involving quantum gravity to explain reality, particularly consciousness, moving beyond conventional interpretations like Many-Worlds. »
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i also go behind the ideas of Anirban Bandyopadhy, the great master of microtubules theory investigation, the creator of the first artificial brain, (his book "nanobrain" is a masterpiece)
 
«
Anirban Bandyopadhyay’s understanding of quantum mechanics departs from conventional views,
focusing on its role in consciousness, the fundamental nature of reality, and biological processes. He views quantum mechanics not just as a theory of subatomic particles but as an inherent property of nature that operates across all scales, including within the brain’s microtubules. 
 
 
Key Concepts
 
  • Pansychism and Universal Consciousness: Bandyopadhyay is a proponent of pansychism, the theory that consciousness is a universal phenomenon, not limited to humans. He posits that the entire universe operates based on quantum processes and resonant frequencies, and consciousness emerges from these universal dynamics.
  • Microtubule Vibrations: Central to his work is the experimental discovery that microtubules (tiny structures within neurons) exhibit quantum vibrations at very specific, high frequencies. This research corroborates the Penrose-Hameroff "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory, which suggests that quantum effects within these structures are essential for human awareness and cognition.
  • Time and Geometry (Fractal Information Theory): He rejects a linear view of time, instead seeing it as a series of nested cycles, an idea he links to mathematical patterns like prime numbers and Fibonacci sequences. His "Fractal Information Theory" and "Geometric Musical Language" use these fractal geometries and resonance patterns to model the brain and universe.
  • Critique of Conventional Quantum Computing: Bandyopadhyay critiques the current drive for universal quantum computing, arguing that it’s limited by classical assumptions. He proposes an alternative, "self-operating mathematical cosmos" (SOMU) framework, which uses a different form of computation rooted in resonance, recursion, and real-time coherence.
  • Quantum Walk in Biology: He suggests that biological systems utilize a "quantum walk" to efficiently process information and select correct pathways instantly, without trial and error, which he contrasts with classical search algorithms. He views nature as "inherently Quantum," keeping entities "encrypted as different property parts". 
  •  
In essence, Bandyopadhyay’s understanding pushes quantum mechanics beyond traditional physics to propose a holistic, mathematically structured, and fundamentally conscious universe where quantum phenomena are a natural and necessary component of all living systems

 

moto_man
454 posts
 

I never understand the resistance to true A/B blind testing.  Sure, it is not the be all and end all, but it is an important data point in comparing competing equipment.  I remember doing an imperfect AB test (not blind) on a digital and optical cable and it was really only because we could switch between them that we were able to detect subtle but existing differences.  OP makes an interesting point as well about people's varying ability to detect differences.  My wife has the nose of a GMO bloodhound; she can smell whether our cat took a dump in the Litter Robot upstairs and must run up and clean it because it smells so badly.  On the other hand, I can't smell it even standing next to the litter robot.  Does that mean that out doesn't smell, or can't be detected.  No.  It just means that I can't detect the minute differences in the air, but she can.  Perhaps the same sort of analogy applies to audio equipment.  Some people have very sharp and discriminating hearing, or even the same sharp hearing but respond to one set of frequencies more than another.  For example, I don't like sharp treble -- it sounds "bright."  Other people might hear the same sound that I dislike as "bright" and believe that it has amazing "realism."  So of course, that leaves us pretty much where we started.  Measurements are an objective data point, AB testing is a datapoint, but ultimately, bad measurements or not, the question is how something sounds to you.  Just because it sounds different or better does not mean that it is the result of a placebo effect or confirmation bias.  To my wife, a piece of cat poop stinks up our entire two story house.  To me, I can't smell it at all.  Doesn't mean that its not there!

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,052 posts
 

Anybody who tune his system room takes hundred of simple informal  blind tests(Not double blind test )...

No one with a brain can be against double blind test in acoustics...

But in acoustics unlike ASR they takes subjective hearing seriously because they study it...

In ASR they use the formal complicated test to eliminate subjective hearing as the main player and to promote a short set of established measures as  the gold standard for sound quality...

It measures well : it must sound good...

It is marketing ploy or pure ignorance ...

It was well debunked by Milind Kunchur...

 

 

I never understand the resistance to true A/B blind testing.  Sure, it is not the be all and end all, but it is an important data point in comparing competing equipment.  I remember doing an imperfect AB test (not blind) on a digital and optical cable and it was really only because we could switch between them that we were able to detect subtle but existing differences.  OP makes an interesting point as well about people’s varying ability to detect differences.  My wife has the nose of a GMO bloodhound; she can smell whether our cat took a dump in the Litter Robot upstairs and must run up and clean it because it smells so badly.  On the other hand, I can’t smell it even standing next to the litter robot.  Does that mean that out doesn’t smell, or can’t be detected.  No.  It just means that I can’t detect the minute differences in the air, but she can.  Perhaps the same sort of analogy applies to audio equipment.  Some people have very sharp and discriminating hearing, or even the same sharp hearing but respond to one set of frequencies more than another.  For example, I don’t like sharp treble -- it sounds "bright."  Other people might hear the same sound that I dislike as "bright" and believe that it has amazing "realism."  So of course, that leaves us pretty much where we started.  Measurements are an objective data point, AB testing is a datapoint, but ultimately, bad measurements or not, the question is how something sounds to you.  Just because it sounds different or better does not mean that it is the result of a placebo effect or confirmation bias.  To my wife, a piece of cat poop stinks up our entire two story house.  To me, I can’t smell it at all.  Doesn’t mean that its not there!

 

 

 

 

 

polkalover
174 posts
 

I have faith that science is real and faith was my former girlfriend 

More to discover