Do you believe in Magic?

hi frogman:

you quoted geoffkait regarding knowledge not being absolute.

in matematics and other tautological endeavors knowledge is absolute. knowledge must be true and a certain, and be subject to proof.

if you know something it must be true and you must be certain about it and be able to peove it, else, there is a probability that what is claimed as knowledge is false.

in all things abstract knowledge is an absolute.

in the empirical world, information is acquired by the method of induction.

the information so acquired cannot be known absolutely, because there is always the exception which has yet to occur.

this is an argument of an epistemological nature.

i am a skeptic, and while i have confidence in the stimuli i perceive and make decisions based upon them, and may learn something new every day, i don't ever claim to know them, for knowledge cannot come from sense perception.

my skepticism could relate to the topic of magic , in that i may perceive something i cannot explain. such a case would indeed be magic. however, there is a chance i may make an error and hear something which does not exist. since i am not certain that i hear something but am confident of it, one is dealing with a stochastic process.

of course it follows that if i hear something, e.g., when i change a cable, i may not be able to explain why i hear it, or my explanations may be invalid. so, i do believe in magic, because of the unreliability of perception.

knowledge requires absolute proof.

knowledge pertains mainly to logic, mathematics and definitions

i would like to add another point.

most explanations of why things work, or explanations as to the bases for changes in sound are hypothetical, because they cannot be proven absolutely.

again, in the world of audio, probability rules, not knowledge.

03-08-12: Geoffkait
The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics.

I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Who is the "we" you are referring to? Is your comment supposed to mean...

It is presumptuous of you, Bryon, to imply that you know all about science, or all about physics.

If so, I implied nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary.

Or does the "we" simply mean "people"? And hence your comment means...

People do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To presume otherwise is wrong.

If so, that was MY point.

And if we don't know the explanation for some Magical device, do we assume that someone out there, maybe at Harvard or MIT or NASA, must know?

Again, I don't know what you're saying here. Are you saying...

Even though YOU don't know a scientific explanation for a "Magical device," someone else might. For example, someone at Harvard, NASA, etc.

Or...

Even the people at Harvard, NASA, etc. might not know the scientific explanation for a "Magical device."

It would help if you would set aside rhetorical questions and cryptic remarks and simply state, in a declarative sentence, what you are attempting to express.

Bryon

If we accept the premise that most devices and tweaks operate in physical reality, I.e., they affect physical, electrical properties that directly or indirectly result in a better audio signal presented to the ears, then there must be a real, physical or electrical explanation for why you hear a change in the sound when evaluating a device or tweak. I also realize there is a class of audio devices and tweaks that are purported to operate on a different level - on our sensory perception of the sound.

In your OP, your attribution of Magic to the ERS paper might have been a bit premature, since the explanation provided by the manufacturer is EMI/RFI absorption, and experiences of many users including other manufacturers seems to bear this explanation out. So one can reasonably conclude that ERS paper is actually not a Magical device in the sense you were using the word.

Finally, I think it would be productive if there were an independent organization that could evaluate these mysterious products we're talking about and offer explanations as to how they work, especially the devices that fall in the second category - the ones that affect the listener's perception of the sound, not the electronic or acoustic signal.

The description is not the described. The perception may be explained in various ways. But it exists in its own realm outside the world of explanation -- whether valid, partially valid or invalid.

In our audio world, perception must take precedence. Otherwise audio becomes an intellectual exercise. We can listen to various aspects or parts of an audio experience and explain them in various ways, or listen to a whole piece and explain it in various ways. But it is the whole experience that is of primary importance. And the experience transcends the intellect. IMO.