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
in my opinion philosophy needs science to have topics to talk/think about, but science doesn't need philosophy to make discoveries :-)) To me it looks like one way relationship...
I should have quoted 'philosophy', which I used as a general term for mental/spiritual activity (thinking about thinking...), not any particular direction, school, religion etc...
Personal bottomline atm: a solid scientific/engineering background (actually started as a schoolboy), but later found a lot was missing on the 'image of existence' and science didn't provide a clue.
I lack the math skills to follow some points in this discussion, but math is a model in itself.
Or another way to describe experience with the option to continue to model experiences.
maybe it is more than just model, maybe it is only one “real” thing
i still did not found time to read this book but looks like it woukd be pretty awesome reading... Max Tegmark is well respected scientists ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
quoted from the link above
the last paragraph seems to be (I didn't read the book) in accordance with the simple observation that you can watch a bug (or whatever organism different from our own biological structure), but that organism doesn't have a similiar impression about it's observer.
Humans don't exist in a bug's 'universe' and these creatures aren't primitive at all.
Reverse perspective and we might take the place of the bug, completely unaware of someone or something observing us.
Bug knows of the person, the person knows of the bug, but as to the exact nature of the other or themselves, we’re not much further along the path of understanding, than the bug.
@knewspeak knew to speak
@LinearLineman your cat knows how to quantum tunnel so he’s already out of the box.
These sorts of retroactive links to ancient philosophy and science might be interesting but to say there is nothing new under the sun seems to overstate the case in significant ways.
In ancient times people said and believed a lot of things which scientific investigations have shown to be highly improbable. To cherry pick and minimize differences between ancient philosophies and science seems to have more to do with story telling rather than anything else.
People use analogy, metaphor and other narrative devices to create meaning and explore ideas so there’s nothing wrong with them. Trying to expand science beyond its scope or trying to reduce non-science into a science like box might have its uses provided you acknowledge the limits and distortions inherent in such a process rather than just trying to gloss over these differences.
The biggest problem I have with your analysis and opinion sharing about philosophy and science is your failure to recognize the interesection between the two. Fortunately, scientists in general, do not have such a narrow and parochial view.
Philosophers had plenty to talk/think about long before the scientific method was developed and practiced. Your opinions reflect your own bias rather than the historical development of either field.
Why is it so hard for you to recognize/accept that the philosophy of science is a field that helps scientists to be more effective?
Science versus Philosophy as a zero sum game of competition between the two doesn’t really make much sense nor characterize the practices of either field.
I completely accept possibility than i'm wrong. I'm not dogmatic in my opinions in any way, changed them many times after new evidences and informations. Always trying to be rational instead of emotional in relation to my opinions
I just didn't hear about single one case in modern physics where philosophy somehow led to some discovery (relativity, QM, strings, particle physics - standard model, cosmology - big bang theory, etc etc).
But if you know about some examples, i'm interested. I would be happy to change my mind, that's scientific approach... At least some example of methodology, developed by philosophers, used by scientists for validating scientific theories, or during experiments / observations ?
@InfoCheck, with respect you are really only guessing at what ancient civilizations were capable of. Our science tells us emphatically that 99% of species have gone extinct. Cannot the same be true of civilizations far older than the seven thousand years we are familiar with? It is hubris, IMO to have certainty that our technology is supreme and that the planet has never seen anything better. At least ancient civilizations did not put us on the precipice of global annihilation.... or maybe they did and that is why we have no trace of them. This alternative approach is not a predilection of mine, but Solomon was a pretty smart fellow. He could handle hundreds of wives, I cannot handle one.
Your approach might also denigrate the power of the mind to do amazing things without any need of technology. That also might be an underestimation. I do not know the truth, but I will not rule out any possibility, especially when science is littered with discarded, mind created, theories. I suspect most scientists realize that any advance or theory is simply a working platform until the next, more "accurate" theory that comes along. Like how we got to the moon, off course 99% of the time. Still, you are good in my book!
This is very good point. Saw some document, analyse what would stay here, let's say 10.000 years from now, in case our civillisation colapses now.
Taking in accout everything we build, materials we use for our buildings, lifespan of that materials, conclusion was rather shocking - if we destroy ourselves now, only artefact which will be still there 10000 years from now would be - pyramides and big wall in china :-)) And of course things like Stonehenge :-))
I would refer you to the topic in Wikipedia to give you an introduction to the topic of the philosophy of science.
I’m not denigrating any ancient civilizations, nor am I denigrating what they might have known, nor do I claim to have an extensive knowledge about ancient civilizations. I made no claims about the superiority or inferiority of any ancient civilizations or science either.
I would caution against making too many comparisons between science and ancient civilizations without qualifications.
Some technologies are certainly made possible as a result of scientific research; however, economics, engineering, social values, and many other factors can go into the technology that is created.
You came to a lot of conclusions about what you think I believe which do not reflect what I believe at all. It’s not clear at all to me how you arrived at your conclusions based upon my post.
Uhm ok. Of course i read that.
That article is actually one of main reasons of my current opinion
But ok i promise i will not comment philosophy anymore here... don't want look like troll or to be annoying.. i will concentrate just on physics...
@dendy: without rigorous philosophy there would be no science or scientific method nor an understanding of what it means to prove something. The best of philosophy starts by speculating about topics we don't fully understand. Pursuit of those topics sometimes results in a topic becoming well understood and the topic moves out of the realm of philosophy.
What we call science was a branch of philosophy until only a few hundred years ago. And philosophy has continued to have an important impact on science and its interpretation and methods.
IMO, without philosophy, science can be severely constrained. If one is investigating only what one observes, then other frames of reference are less likely to be discovered.
Think of a triangle drawn on a piece of paper. It’s domain is two dimensions. If it encounters a three dimensional pyramid, and is only thinking from it’s frame of reference, it will only experience the pyramid as a square. If the pyramid intersects the paper in various ways over time, the triangle will observe changes in the size and shape of the square, even to the point of it becoming a triangle itself.
Without a philosophical outlook, the observer might be satisfied with concluding, “This is a shape that changes size and shape over time,” and exhaust themselves looking for causes within the two dimensional plane. A philosopher, poo-pooed, by scientists for imagining an un-observable third dimension, might investigate this phenomenon as possible evidence of it and lead to a breakthrough.
Sorry, I just don’t see how science can be such without constant assumption that its own frame of reference is insufficient. A scientist who fears or resists philosophy is missing the mark in my view.
Science is fantastic at answering the ‘what if’ questions, but as a species probably unique on this planet, we are self aware enough, to be burdened with the quest to ask ‘why’.
Humanity has an insatiable desire to find patterns and causal chains. The abstract is real. It exists in our brains but whether or not in exists, like god damn mf’n Plato’s stupid perfect solids, in the greater shared “reality” can be debated. (I dislike Plato)
@dendy if you think that philosophy doesn’t forward or contribute to “science” I encourage you to look at Ancient Greek philosophers, the clergy, and more, like sir Issac Newton, who while possessed of a keen scientific and mathematical mind still believed in alchemy and transmutation. I understand what you are saying that philosophy in and of itself is no substitute for experiment, observation, and measurement, that is testing hypotheses. But all ideas come from the what if... what happens when... how does this fuckin’ shit work... WHY?... and so is none too divorced from philosophy. Also philosophy has its logic much of which is applied in science and the interpretations of it conclusions.
Science to me is the philosophical pursuit of the question of “why?” Then data. Then why again.
There’s always more than one way to do things and it’s not necessary for every scientist to study philosophy but in general some aspects of philosophy have been and continue to be a source for contributing to the development of science.
No problem @InfoCheck. Just disregard my comments.
@wim... You must be familiar with Edwin Abbot's "Flatland". You paraphrased the premise perfectly. If not, check it out. Love the point's point of view,
I saw an animated film based on it in elementary school, and never forgot it. It changed my thinking about many things. I didn’t know about the book, so I’m very happy for that bit of information. That is going to be my next read.
Science now days deals with other frames of reference all the time. Relativity for time and space frames of reference and, 'degrees of freedom' in many other physics problems.
Look into Gimbal Lock and space navigation.
Extra dimensions have always been hard for US to comprehend. I like to think of it in terms similar to an accounting spreadsheet (although the analogy is imperfect) the idea being as you add or delete extra dimensions you add or delete a column.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics)
This is fun too and imaginative
Says all the things and glibly
More rigorous
The OG SAGAN
@LinearLineman Seriously though your cats out (of the bag, ummm... box)
Ok, guys, you have forced my hand... an article comparing the Kabbalistic concepts of the 15th century Jewish mystic Isaac Luria and Superstring theory. @dendy @audiblevideo @wim, @espiegal @InfoCheck don't say I didn't warn you!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0112v1.pdf
In the paper,
A significant point to keep in mind is that correlation does not prove causation. No matter how statistically improbable something may be, the onus is upon the scientists to show causation and not simply base their conclusions upon the strength of correlations.
Science does not involve theories about the existence of divinity. Kabbalah presumes it exists and available to those seekers of true mystical exegesis. The paper seems to revolve around the idea that both Superstring theory and Kabbalah attempt to explain reality and have an improbable similarity in their structures.
The paper is almost 20 years old, how much has the perspective, structure, and relevance of string theory changed since the paper was published?
In many respects the paper seems to be IMO, an attempt to reconcile two very distinct traditions which are based upon different assumptions and practices. People do seem to frequently have an urge to reconcile or merge traditions when there’s apparent conflict or alternative explanations that are of significance to them.
These conflicts and their attempts at resolution can be seen in the context of how the development of science and its effect on a wide variety of religious belief systems.
From my perspective, I do not see the need to create a science versus religion conflict as they do have significantly different assumptions and practices. Many scientists have been theists and some have not.
While it’s interesting to compare and contrast the two, forcing a reconciliation of the two may relieve some of our anxiety related to theism versus science— it can be problematic. Forcing such a reconciliation would minimize and undermine the strengths of each. I think the paper’s author is okay in this regard.
I’m not a huge fan of everything happening for a reason and prefer to acknowledge that there are a lot of things I may never know and others can pursue their own quest in this regard though I’d appreciate it if they didn’t do so at my expense. Tolerance, empathy, and respect can help to minimize these conflicts.
I just find it fascinating @infocheck that ancient minds investigated things that were almost beyond imagining for them ( as it is for any explorer on the edge of what is known) even though limited in the scientific means available.
Yes, it is amazing what people have been able to come up with using very limited resources. I think too often people can dismiss them without knowing much about them because they’re so rooted in the hamster wheel of progress.