Philolaus as the Liar of the Lyre as a test of noncommutative quantum geometry

So I am returning back to Philolaus because his "bait and switch" lie was based on flipping the Lyre around to reverse the order of the strings! This is quite hilarious since I have a chapter in my 2012 book - actually going back to 10 years ago - about what I call the Lyre of the Liar. Oops I meant the opposite but since now we know who the Liar is - we can reverse it. Yes let's quote the book. (google preview) Too bad that full pdf link is gone - of Professor Richard McKirahan.

"it makes no difference which way we go, the result is the same. This corresponds to the commutative property of addition of numbers."

So he's talking about Philolaus and the Perfect Fifth plus Perfect Fourth equals Octave lie. Why is it a lie? Before I have pointed out the lie based on the mathematical logic alone. In this case the lie is because Philolaus is using DIFFERENT HANDS to play the Lyre in order to reverse the direction of Perfect Fourth first or Perfect Fifth.

This is hilarious - since we now from science now that different hands activate the opposite sides of the brains - and so to claim that by just flipping the Lyre around you get the symmetrical mathematical effect is like claiming you can flip a guitar around without messing up the player. There is a reason Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix have opposite constructed guitars - because the hand positioning would be reversed otherwise. So yes on a 7 string Lyre you can easily reverse your hand positioning but this is NOT the same as claiming that the mathematics is symmetrical.

And that example of Clapton and Hendrix is from the 2016 quantum biology award-winning book, "Life on the Edge" - to explain why a molecule with the SAME quantum frequency smells differently!! Because it's form as chirality is changed around!! So Professor McKirahan is assuming that the direction of playing a Perfect Fifth and then Perfect Fourth SOUNDS the same as playing the reverse direction. But any music theorist knows that you play the Perfect Fifth AFTER the Perfect Fourth in order to get a stronger "pull" to the octave - the reason why 12 bar blues music goes from the tonic to the Fourth and then BACK to the tonic and then to the fourth and then to the Fifth as the build up of the PULL - the emotional Desire - the "climax" back to the tonic.

But of course - in the real empirically true musical mathematics - the Perfect Fourth is the "ghost tonic" and so the climax is eternal as the infinite spiral of fifths that creates a new tonic of the fourth as a relativistic spacetime conversion of matter!

So let's go back to Professor Richard McKirahan and see what other tricks Philolaus has for us.

According to Philolaus, as per McKirahan, "it makes no difference" if we go from Perfect Fifth to Perfect Fourth or vice versa because the end result is ZERO either way. I have an earlier blog post on zero

Now we can have some fun with our PRofessor! He sets up a logical mathematical equation and he states:

"and since (S-S)=0"

 And here is where I point out - what is S? drum roll folks.....

He says in the foot note that 0 is the "original note" as the reversal of Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth. To quote:

In the present case this means that regardless if you go from string 1 to string 7 via string 4 or string 5, the result is the same: (1, 7) = 0.

so if you go up the same note and back down again (IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION BY FLIPPING THE LYRE) - in this case 4/3 - then you get 0 as the original note. (and how can zero be a note? more on that below). If that is true then why is 4/3 called the "ghost tonic" since 4/3 is not part of the harmonic series? Because it CHANGES what the original note is!! The ONLY way you can create 4/3 is by "doubling" 2/3 as the reverse order noncommutative subharmonic.

But that is not the "only" way as Professor McKirahan has skillfully shown - you can reverse the order of the Lyre itself!!

This is true because Philolaus is dealing no longer with the musical intervals between the notes made by a particular pair of strings, but with the magnitude of those intervals.

In other words if C to F is 2/3 as subharmonic that means the new "0" as the original note is now 3 that is then doubled to get to F as 4/3 the Perfect Fourth overtone harmonic! (0 to 8 is the 3/2 frequency of 0 to 12 now converted to 6/8 as 3/4 wavelength of 0 to 8 root tonic!) But the original note can't be 3 since it started as 1 (or was that zero?) and only 2 as the octave is the same note harmonic (or so we thought). This even means that 2 as the octave (also changes).

NOW - Professor McKirahan has bypassed this whole "ghost tonic" bait and switch of the mathematical logic by switching the order of the Lyre - not the actual mathematical logic of the music harmonics. haha.

 So instead of taking 12:9, which is 3/4 of 12, we take 8:6, which is 3/4 of 8. And so by adding the length 12 to 8 [as geometric magnitude not wavelength!!] with the length 8 to 6, [as geometric magnitude, not wavelength!!] we get the length 12 to 6, which corresponds to the ratio 2:1.

So what his mathematical equation does is reverse the order at the octave and then he "cancels out" this noncommutative order reversal by ending the new 0 or original note as on the Fifth (G) instead of C. He covers this up by leaving out the concept of Pitch all together - which is what we listen to - as based on geometry (i.e. 2/3 is C to F subharmonic while 3/2 is C to G overtone harmonic). So the option of going in the reverse direction octave is not allowed in his mathematical equation - even though all you would have to do is Start the Lyre on a different reversal of position! Hilarious!! If you did that then the pitch would be F (2/3) as the Perfect Fifth subharmonic - not G as the overtone harmonic (3/2).

If you don't believe me - all we have to do is go back to Professor Robert McKirahan as he explains this is exactly what Philolaus did.

McKirahan makes his "Bait and Switch" Lie of the Lyre!!

The generality of this result is the important thing. It holds for all cases of adding and subtracting these ratios, not only when we have a particular seven-string lyre. Once again, Philolaus used familiar properties of a lyre in a paradigm proof.

I just explained why this is not true! Hilarious! So let's go back to his math and show again.

He states,

"In general, an interval is defined by two notes, the order is irrelevant. (1, 5) = (5, 1)."

This is the classic music "bait and switch" in action again!! He is leaving out the fact that we listen to music pitch!! So in this case "1" is the root tonic (above it was zero!!) and 5 is the Perfect Fifth. Now let me ask you a question. Is the Perfect Fifth as 3/2 or C to G "irrelevant" to the Perfect Fifth being FIRST as 2/3 to 1 or C to F?

If you reverse the direction - he neglects to point out that the octave is being used as the same pitch as the root tonic - even though the octave is the fraction 2 - as half of the wavelength! Instead we find this claim:

We tend to think of ratios as fractions but the Greeks viewed them differently. For the Greeks there are no numbers between 2 and 3.

 DUDE - that's not the point that there are "numbers" between 2 and 3 - he is ASSUMING the symmetrical continuum. The point is that if you reverse the order of 2 and 3 then the "ratio" has a different Pitch!!

I am proposing that Philolaus treats ratios of numbers as numbers.

Yes I'm sure he did - and that's great that you, Professor Richard McKirahan have discovered this, but by treating ratios of numbers as numbers - you cover up the truth of noncommutative ratios as fractions! Fractions are noncommutative!! So you can not just "add" a multiplication as a symmetric logistic equation since to subtract as division is noncommutative! In other words Philolaus derives the Pythagorean Tetractys from the geometric mean first

And this is where we get to the "juicy" part of how Philolaus (and his promoter McKirahan) get away with the "bait and switch" Lie of the Lyre. By switching the hand position on the Lyre - this is covered up by simplying flipping the Lyre around and then claiming this can be done for any mathematical system. No a mathematical system is not physical reality - but you just claimed that this limited deductive logic is the same as the empirical reality of a Lyre!! Hilarious. Is a Lyre a Guitar? Nope. So obviously the math only works for this Lyre.

And to make the Math work you have to assume that the Octave C is the SAME "number" even though it is a RATIO of the original note - that is either 1 or 0 - depending on your bait and switch tactic!!And so then by equating the octave with the 1 or 0 - this enables what I called in my 2012 pdf - a reversal of infinity - as with the closed equation form of the Golden Ratio whereby A plus B has to be switched to A - B. But in fact it is B - A which has a different value - since 2 - 1 is 1 while 2 plus 1 is 3.

So this is exactly the same trick since he says you get 3 if you reverse the direction - so that you started out at a fifth and then go up a fourth (to the octave) and then you go back a fourth and you're back at the fifth! Yes but you actually started at the root tonic NOT the fifth!

So he states:

beginning at the bottom note...and descending via another (a fifth above the bottom note).

So he says "bottom note" twice to emphasize they are symmetric and then says "via another" to HIDE that the "other" is the OCTAVE!!

That is the bait and switch - and then he says -

(1, 4) = (7, 5)

What is (1, 4)? It is a Perfect Fourth which is the PITCH of C to F (overtone). Anyone who actually knows how to play music would not fall for this bait and switch! What is (7, 5)? It is a Perfect Fourth which is the PITCH of C to G.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He just said they are equal BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL. How does he cover up this lie? Oh since they are both a Perfect Fourth then it's o.k. - they are equal!! This is exactly the "bait and switch" in action and now I have exposed it for what it is!!

Now remember I have called this the Hempel Effect. And why? Because as a musician in high school I realized that we HEAR this pitch differently and I wondered - very innocently - why can't C to F, as Perfect Fifth be 2/3 and why can't G to C be 4/3 (instead of C to F)? Now we know why - because for the math of Archtyas to work then it has to be logarithmic as arithmetic mean x harmonic mean = geometric mean squared. Which is to say that 0 and 1 are equivalent since the octave is 2 and so 2 is actually the SQUARE that can "contain" zero as negative infinity by reversing the order of infinity.

Aristotle was against negative infinity and Shahn Majid has pointed out that Aristotle was correct due to noncommutative geometry!!

So what Professor Richard McKirahan is stating is that you NEED a double octave for this bait and switch to work. So you have a string with the mathematical value of zero to 12 - and you pluck the string and what you have is the root tonic as 1. Therefore (1, 7) = 0 when you have a string of 1 that is double the wavelength of the seventh string on the lyre. So that on the double octave - instead of the 7th string being the octave frequency 2, it is rather the same string with a "node" that you PRESS down and has a mathematical value of 6 (at half the wavelength). But in fact the "node" that you PRESS down at 6 is frequency 2 as the octave. And so then 0 to 9 is 3/4 of the string 0 to 12, therefore a frequency of 4/3 at 3/4 the wavelength. And so then 0 to 8 is 2/3 of the string 0 to 12 and so the frequency is 3/2 of 2/3 the wavelength.

Now we are getting into the Archytas mathematics - so does he switch from 2 as frequency to 2 as squaring?

He says how do we get Philolaus' claim that 3:2 plus 4:3 = 2:1 since it doesn't work for 12:8 plus 12:9 = 12:6.

Now wait - did Professor McKirahan just do what I think he did? He REVERSED the frequency of 3/2 at wavelength 2/3!!

So the frequency is 3/2 from wavelength 2/3 since 8/12 is 2/3 of 0 to 12. Oh hold on now? 8/12 is two-thirds of 1 to 12 not 0 to 12 but 1 is the Frequency as the Root tonic HEARD AS PITCH!! and now he is saying 3/2 frequency as pitch is 12/8 as wavelength but 12/8 wavelength reduces to 3/2 wavelength which is 2/3 frequency!! and 2/3 Frequency is NOT THE SAME PITCH since it is C to F while 3/2 frequency is C to G!!

Let me quote him in full - to prove I am not making up this Bait and Switch LIE!!!!

Can we do something similar with Philolaus's other claim that 3:2 + 4:3 = 2:1? We might think that this would amount to the claim that 12:8 plus 12:9 = 12:6, but this is not an obvious result, since it is immediately not clear how to perform the addition.

NO WE MIGHT NOT THINK THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO THAT CLAIM SINCE YOU JUST REVERSED FREQUENCY WITH WAVELENGTH AND THEY ARE NONCOMMUTATIVE!!

Busted.

Philolaus used 6:8 as 3/4 of zero to 8 and then reversed the octave so that 12 to 6 is the root tonic of 1 frequency while 8/12 is 2/3. 

 In other words we start at 12 and take 2/3 of its length. Then we add a length corresponding to the ratio 4:3, but this time we are starting not at 12 but at 8 and we want to take 3/4 of that. So instead of taking 12:9, which is 3/4 of 12, we take 8:6 which is 3/4 of 8. And so by adding the length 12 to 8 and 8 to 6, we get the length 12 to 6 which corresponds to the ratio 2:1.

Now to quote my 2012 pdf:

Shahn Majid, “Aristotle May Provide the Key to Quantum Gravity,” CambridgeBlog, December 2, 2008:.

Yeah and what did I say in particlar - what was that quote?

Oh I can screen shot the pdf.

O.K. so the point is with McKirahan is that as a musician not only do we listen to PITCH and it is noncommutative but we do not NEED a string with a node of zero that we then press down at six - and so the frequency is 2 and with the string from node zero to 12 the frequency is 1.

Do you see the bait and switch? He started out with a string that is 1 and the frequency is 1 on the Lyre - and then he reverses the Lyre so that the intervals are noncommutative but the hand position is the same. Then he claims this is commutative which is it not - only by ignoring that you had to literally reverse physical reality!!

Then he puts down the lyre and now states we have a string that "starts" at node zero!! But what is a "zero node?" Didn't notice that Bait and Switch right? haha.

The point being that we LISTEN to music and so we don't NEED a string with a ZERO node - it is not necessary. All we have to do is ask WHO is listening - from where does the sound arise? and the answer we get is that there IS NO ZERO but instead reality is noncommutative! If we reverse our HAND POSITIONS instead of reversing the lyre - then we change our energy direction and change how we hear the pitch - relative to what the root tonic is. We change our sense of SElf as the root tonic - the One as the I-thought.

There is no ZERO but there is an infinity of Ones or I-thoughts that merge together via an infinite noncommutative reversal of infinite frequency and time - negative infinity and positive infinity reversal as light.



O.K. so now finally we can move on to the juicy stuff of noncommutative geometry.

Now in order to test quantum gravity - what is proposed is a noncommutative reverse of time and frequency as a micro-mechanical oscillator! Guess what? That is precisely what the Human Body-Mind IS as the nonwestern alchemists discovered! So with Professor McKirahan points out that Philolaus switched Lyre around - and then he did a "bait and switch" math trick to claim ratios are commutative - when in fact the Lyre reverses the direction of the intervals as PITCH - this assumes that the root tonic of 1 as frequency is the same as the root tonic of 1 as wavelength. Then when he switches over to the monochord  the wavelength is now "zero" to 12 - but how can you have a physical string that is zero? It is impossible! So instead you use the DOUBLE octave and say that by pressing down ONE node you get an octave - and suddenly you have equated the ONE node with the frequency of TWO as the octave!!

So this confuses geometry that is noncommutative with number that is switched to commutative ratios as nodes from noncommutative number as frequency and wavelength.

In other words the "node" only enables irrational magnitude by hiding the fact that it REQUIRES a physical pressing down of the string whereas we can just LISTEN to music without needing to press down a string (that tries to hide the noncommutative frequency/wavelength PITCH harmonics).

So here is a critique of the above experimental test of quantum gravity as noncommutative spacetime:

 It is correct that noncommutative geometry plays a role in many approaches to quantum gravity and it’s not an entirely uninteresting idea. However, the variant that the authors want to test in the paper is not of the commonly discussed type. They want the effect to be relevant for the center-of-mass coordinates, so that it scales with the total mass. That assumption has no support from any approach to quantum gravity. It’s made-up. It is also mathematically highly problematic.

Does that sound slightly familiar?

 To quote PRofessor Majid again.

Now instead of "alien race" insert nonwestern noncommutative alchemists based on the Tai Chi, real Pythagorean harmonics and the three gunas of India and the original human culture - N/om energy, etc.

So what are these Not-apples that Newton didn't discover and why didn't he? See the above monochord? See how it is different then the monochord nodes of Professor McKirahan's discussion of Philolaus?


 

Bingo:

They want the effect to be relevant for the center-of-mass coordinates,


 I rest my case - those coordinates originate from Newton using the wrong music theory of Archytas and Philolaus!!

Dear Professor McKirahan and Professor Borzacchini: Thank you for your continued interest in my critique of your, McKirahan, fascinating Lyre Flipping origin of Western music (and mathematics). http://ecoechoinvasives.blogspot.com/2018/02/philolaus-as-liar-of-lyre-as-test-of.html Please let me know any criticism, comments or questions. I connect to noncommutative quantum geometry via Aristotle referred to by mathematical physics professor Majid.

All the best,

drew hempel

Dear Professor Andrei Lebedev: Thank you for your real Pythagorean philosophy! I exposed Professor Robert McKirahan's fake "pre-Socratic" philosophy based on his published article about Philolaus. Please let me know any comments, criticisms, questions, etc. http://ecoechoinvasives.blogspot.com/2018/02/philolaus-as-liar-of-lyre-as-test-of.html

All the best,

drew hempel