Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Yes, I know, but until science creates and conducts experiments to determine this, the nature of observation, we are all in the ‘dark’.
that's usual problem of philosophy, metaphysic, religion and stuff like that .. it always ends like snake eating own tail .. you'll never get real answers about real world phenomenons from philosophy, because philosophy is all about abstract constructs inside your head, it is not in any way related to real world.
that's why i'm keeping myself away from philosophy and rather stick with real science
But humanity has an insatiable desire to make the abstract real.
Abstract concepts move men not particles. I forget who said it
( remind me, someone, please) .... "convince a man of an absurdity and you can get him to commit an atrocity." Is that philosophical? Not to the victim. Any, please disregard, we are talking physics ( I may need one after tonight's New Year's fest).
Your point seems to confuse the map with the territory it represents. A stimulus, in this case the air vibrations, isn’t the same as what we hear after it’s been processed through the brain. We can certainly use various devices or other people to observe or record the air vibrations but none of these are the actual air vibrations themselves.
Consider a simplified version of sound as a chain of causality:
Sound requires a stimulus (e.g. air pressure waves), ears (translates to nerve signals) and a brain which process the nerve signals which we experience as sound. This is a chain of causality where any link in the chain will influence to some degree what we experience as sound. The differences may be so small that we can’t distinguish the difference.
The phrase does, “a tree make a sound when it falls in the forest” may be the point of confusion as the tree is only the source of the vibrations in air or ground. It doesn’t take into account the human part of the sound chain. We tend to assume that the tree will still generate vibrations whether we’re there or some sort of recording device is there but there is a difference between observing a phenomenon and assuming a specific phenomenon occurred because that’s been the consistent pattern in the past. For the vast majority of us such distinctions are not significant in our daily lives.
With respect to your aversion to philosophy as crap, it might not be of interest to you, but you don’t seem to be always very focused on the points people are trying to raise. Philosophy like science can be more of less/practical from our POV.
Your statement, “Its VERY important to not mix together philosophy and physics” demonstrates both a poor understanding of physics and philosophy. Scientists must continually subject their theories and experiments to rigorous questioning about how justified they are in drawing the conclusions they have from the work and analysis they’ve done.
Your off hand dismissal of philosophy is the intellectual equivalent of an ostrich burying its head in the sand rather than recognizing how addressing philosophical questions raised can be a tool to improve a scientist’s methodology. There is a philosophy of science devoted to doing just that.
I hope you reconsider your approach to these topics so you’ll have more opportunities to develop your own understanding and benefit from the work of others.
Cause it's fun and a cat 😻can look at a king @Max23. 😽Happy New Year!
yeah, i'm wondering too.. you should think about it
Look, I am surprised at this. People often use their opinions like money ( especially if they don't have the latter), hey, I got more money than you!
This is a paltry squabble not worth the 1's and 0's it's printed on.
And beneath you. My thread, my cat. Bad marks for works and plays well with others. My vote is with sophistry, at least you know up front it is phony.
People with science (or science understanding) CAN generate bad philosophy from it.
People with bad science (or science understanding) WILL generate REALLY bad philosophy from it.
Fell enough trees there won’t be a forest 😜
Humans are making great progress in this area.
Wishing everyone in space-time a happy new something, and the cat a happy old, new, and every other possible outcome.
@max23 thank you for the very interesting video. There’s lots of food for thought there. I’ll need to hunt around to see if there are any of these neural plasticity training game apps available on iOS.
Cool - made me observe my personal latency in realtime
I’m sorry if I started a long scientific discussion on this forum, but that only tells us how many highly intelligent people are in here
musicians are smart.
And remember, in all discussions, when we come down to the Planck-lengt... reasonable answers are impossible.
Atoms? Nope! We are made of particles after all.
One night, Feynman was awakened by his professor John Wheeler. He shouted into the phone, eureka, I have this for you... “everything makes sense if there is only one electron in existence in the universe. According to quantum mechanics a particle can be everywhere at the same time.”
A wild theory, which I don’t believe in, because it’s now proven that an electron has a tiny amount of mass.
But it can be true about photon(s) They’re massless and don’t have to experience time.
;-)
Despite the lack of mass, they can only be at one location at a time.
Actually they can be everywhere at a time, "one location at time" isn't reason why is this theory unlikely to be true
But of course, I agree that this theory is very unlikely, it's more like interesting mind excercise. But it led to other interesting discoveries, so it was not completely useless
I suggest you that video i pasted above, it's very detailed analyse of this Wheeler's idea. PBS Space Time have really great videos about relativity and QM related stuff
Eh... no, that would go against Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which says you ccannot know the position if you know the velocity. Photons smear out as waves in the double slit experiment.
I’ll watch the video, I didn’t know about it, but I’ve been through Feynman lectures just for the fun of it.
As I remember they were recorded in the early 60s, so it’s funny to watch them in retrospect knowing what we know now. But the Feynman diagrams are still living strong.
Neither the two slit experiment nor the uncertainty principle imply that a particle or quantum can be in different places at once. The uncertainty principle merely says that the particle could be located in a number of different locations not that it is located at more than one of those locations.
The dual slit experiment demonstrates the dual nature of matter and that what we call particles behave as what we call waves when conditions are appropriate. Similarly, what we call waves seem to be particles under appropriate conditions -- some physicists would say matter is neither particle or wave and that our experience of them as particles or waves is a manifestation of how we interact with it. It also gives us the probability of the location , etc.
So quantum events, the probable of the possible, but could a potentially possibility even be, to not exist in space-time.
Yes, but that’s not exactly correct either. I wonder at which school you studied physics.
I don’t want to be rude, I just wondered. I’d really like someone to discuss mathematics with, as we’re in this very exiting time of probing very abstract ideas.
Es gibt keine Materie! Prof. Hans-Peter Dürr
In a way QFT (quantum field theory and QED) unites the concepts of wave and particle together. In QFT fields exist in every point in space, in which every point in space has a value. These points are quantized existing in discrete integers.
Particles are disturbances in fields that persist (over time). Each basic particle is its oscillation in its own field. It is it’s own field.
QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are—in a sense—more fundamental than the basic particles. Interactions between particles are described by interaction terms in the Lagrangian involving their corresponding fields. Each interaction can be visually represented by Feynman diagrams, which are formal computational tools, in the process of relativistic perturbation theory.
On Feynman diagrams
And the doom of spacetime (RE Feynman diagrams)
specifically at 59:25
Well, the physics jocks here have outdistanced the wannabes in short order. For me that things are not as they appear to be, and that effect can precede cause, for example( as proposed in the spiritual "philosophy" of adveyda vedanta) is enough for my small scientific ability. I do believe that these deep understandings were understood and investigated in ancient time and, since science was far less developed than philosophy, were perforce the province of religion and philosophy. A great example is Isaac Luria, a 16th century Jewish mystic, who described a version of string theory with multiple dimensions curled up , more or less, alongside the ones we perceive. The Big Bang was also described, I believe. King Solomon is purported to have said "there is nothing new under the sun" and that was over 2,000 years ago. We may believe we are at the cutting edge, but ancient civilizations managed to reach many of the same conclusions, and since so many breakthroughs begin in the mind and are verified by scientific method it is easy to understand that evolved thought does not require modern scientific method to justify the incredible depth of human thinking.
Now please release my cat.
Science and philosophy aren't necessarily flipsides of the same coin