Numbers

thats interesting....+props for developing that while high. i cant function like that when im high

 

I've had the same thought, only replace Math with Music, and replace Numbers with Vibrations. Well, not the exact idea, but a very similar one.

 

Because you brought this up I too will share a high thought, it has some resemblance to yours.

I have this suspicion that everything can be quantified, theoretically. Things like greed, love, generosity. These things aren't subjective. We do not use these types of words, in context, after the phrase "In my opinion you are...<humble> <sadistic> <kind>"

There are two ways to understand what I'm talking about, and one involves some hypothetical technology. I'll explain it using the less complicated method, because it's easier. Suppose you're god. You have a flawless record of every human thought, action, and experience. You would literally be able to, at whim, line up the current inhabitants of earth in order from most greedy to least greedy. Most loving to least loving. You'd be able to point to the most and least selfish person alive on the planet. And the second most selfish. And the second least selfish, and so on.

We can measure weight and height only because we have tools that allow us to do this. We cannot measure greed because we do not have accurate tools of measuring greed, but if we open a newspaper and read a story to the tune of the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme or the stunts that go on on Wall street we don't hesitate to call a spade a spade. The most interesting point here is there currently exists a person on the planet who is the most concerned about their fellow human beings, you just can't point to that person and say it with absolute authority(yet). It should be a goal of ours to find out how to do this, because that person deserves a goddamn award at least, or better yet a position in some major government.

What technology would be required to do that, though? Well, something to reliably test human experience, or perhaps a reliable lie detector would be a good head start. You wouldn't be able to go as far as I did in the begining of my post, but you'd still be able to say to someone "You are one evil fuck, and here's the evidence to prove it."

So yes. Measuring evil. That's what I kill time thinking about. I want to live to see a day where we can say "Holy shit, according to these results, you are the most evil person on the planet."

 

if you replace music with math, but keep the vibrations part, then you have string theory

 

The difficulty in doing this lies in the fact that every individual's perspective of good and evil is entirely subjective. For the most part, we can agree on common evils such as the Bernie Madoff example you mentioned, and most would also agree on those who have done significant good for society. However, I feel that the opinion regarding the #1 most good and evil person in the world varies too much to ever make a measurment of it. For example, although it is not a commonly held viewpoint some would place Adolf Hitler very high on the list of positive contributers to our society. It seems virtually impossible to ever reach universal consensus on a question like this.

The idea of a machine that could someday determine this question is certainly an intriguing one. I don't really see it happening in my lifetime, simply because our relationship with technology has not evolved enough for there to be universal acceptance of a moral judgement made by a computer. However with the development of true artificial intelligence it certainly seems within the realm of possibility, just not for a looong time.

 

Pretty much the same thing.

The basis of music is sound(vibrations, waves, energy) and math (tempo, time signature, scales, intervals, etc). Music is ALL math. So is everything. Everything is also waves, vibrations and energy.

Music is literally everything. Except we can see and hear it. That's probably why its been around for so long.


Everything you see is one big formula made up of infinite smaller formulas, so small that you'd stop using numbers and have to use variants of infinity. As in, infinity1 + infinity2= infinity3. Probably the product of some experiment in a test tube or a collision in a particle accelorator.

Also, there can be spaces between infinity, so you'd need to devise a way to account for whatever the hell that is.

 

I had THIS exact thought too!! and it was pretty recently too, but i was with friends who don't know anything about string theory (which isn't much less than i know lol) so i couldn't elaborate or discuss it with them. But my friend started talking about how there are all these invisible waves all around us. Some are radio waves that can be recepted to play music. Others are actual sound waves, from a speaker, a guitar, etc. We can't see these waves, but we can hear them, and some could argue we can feel them. So i started connecting this with the string theory, and my mind felt like it was on LSD. It would make sense that the universe is made of 2-d string particles that vibrate. It would explain how music travels. How airwaves travel. How we recept them when we can "tune" into them. It would explain so much, but it can't be proven! (yet). It would also explain why i literally feel like im bathing in music and sound waves when i listen to music on LSD

Its very intriguiing.
And i did alot of this thinking last night when a special was on TV about the history of music and why humans love music and why its been around forever. We took western music to a secluded tribe in africa who had never heard western music, and didn't even have a word for music. The reason, was to see how they responded to what we consider "sad," "happy," or "angry" music. They put headphones on thousands of these people, played some classical music that would make us westerners feel a certain way, and when they heard it, they'd point to a picture of either a happy, sad, or scared face. Turns out we haven't been culturally affected by music, but that it is objectively enjoyed throughout all humankind, and that certain combinations of tones, notes, and chords envoke an objective emotion in all humans. What sounds sad to one sounds sad to all. Very interesting show, and now i've let this thread get completely off topic.

and the other poster.... yes music is definitely indeed math. The only difference is that in math, if you brake a rule, you get a wrong solution or answer. In music, if you break a rule, it has potential to make a great song by going out of the box and having the element of surprise (ie a dissonance chord [one that sounds bad and unnerving and like it doesn't belong] coming at an unexpected part, only to resolve on a beautiful chord that brings the song back and makes the listener have strong emotions. A good song example would be the Beatles 'Day in the Life,' when they have the dissonance chord build up... it makes the listener uneasy and uncomfortable... almost anxious. Then, out of nowhere - BOOM - "woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb, across my head")

k im done, sorry for getting pretty off topic, but, it does kind of relate so maybe it'll be some food for thought

 

Mathematics was inspired by people inspired by nature.

 

there actually is a guy who uses a certain algorithm to predict future events

check this out:

The New Nostradamus | GOOD

 

I consider this on topic so I'm going to respond,

Indeed, you're only describing one side of the emotion. Minor seconds (semitones, dissonance chords) are there to evoke a dark, gritty feeling and are in no way a musical error (theory wise). A minor 2nd is an inverted major 7th. 2 + 2 isn't 5. I would consider semitones not a musical error in the same way I would consider a note out of key. (but I'm no musical genious, that's my friend's job)

But I agree with you.

 

OP: Your thought is very similar to a topic in the "children's novel" The Phantom Tollbooth. There was a schism between two factions: those that communicated with language and thought it was the most important idea and those that used math and thought it was the most significant and explained everything. Somewhat random, but a really awesome book... if you get a chance, check it out. It's really simple and features a lot of trippy ideas and excellent word play. And it's such an easy read that you can read it high/trippin' whatever.

 

Their perspective of good and evil is subjective, but good and evil are not subjective. We do not use these terms to express opinions, unless we have some sort of cognitive dissonance or philosophical ignorance. We don't have debates about the ethics of raping children(anymore?). This consensus is cross-cultural, it's universal as far as we know.

Oh you definitely have a point. I'm not saying this would be perfectly arranged, perhaps there is no 'most good' person. Perhaps by some fluke there are 38 of the most good people sharing the same real number on the continuum, and those people are(slightly) more good than the people directly under them. My point was only meant to demonstrate that this is measurable because everyone is more or less good and more or less evil, and this can be resolved mathematically, we just don't have adequate tools at this point in time.

It's not commonly held for a reason. We disregard these people as batshit insane, we don't go "Oh okay, I guess that's just your subjective opinion." Hitler, according to history, I suspect would measure more towards the evil end of the spectrum.

Yep, AI is amazing. Once we understand the brain the same way we understand the pancreas, we can build something incredible. By this time we will be able to build an extremely intelligent machine that will surpass the intelligence of our entire planet combined. This isn't really theoretical once we have completely reverse engineered the brain, its rather realistic. And once you can program a human to have zero bias, you have a flawless lie detector.

 

I believe good and evil are entirely subjective, both being concepts based on individual perspective. You are correct that the merits of child molestation are no longer debated, but the fact that the opinion is held by the vast majority does not make it any less subjective on an individual basis, it simply means that people are very likely to take this viewpoint based on their experiences with a civilized society. If two people have a completely contrasting set of views regarding what is good and evil, there is nothing to suggest that either is more correct other than the majority opinion of others.

Certainly the viewpoint is not commonly held, but I believe it perfectly illustrates the difficulty of creating such a moral judgment computer. Because I see good and evil as entirely subjective things, it is not possible to simply disregard these viewpoints in a truly objective judgment. Any measurement that wrote off people with moral views completely against the grain of society as "batshit insane" would not be objective at all, it would simply be judging people against the majority viewpoint of society. You, I, and (hopefully) most people on here would agree that radical viewpoints such as the Nazi perspective are wrong according to our own moral standards, but the people that hold these viewpoints have equally as many reasons for believing that they are correct and we are all wrong.

I'm very tired and it's rather hard to respond to this in an organized fashion so I'm gonna call it a night, but I'd love to debate this further tomorrow after work (damn morning shift)