Music is mathematically finite.

My cousin's ex-husand was the replacement singer for Skid Row and when he basically said this at a holiday dinner about 20 years ago I said " Oh yeah? Have you heard Slint?!" Que awkward silence.

the space of potential music is at least uncountably infinite

Yet can be considered infinite considering the time we take to listen to one song.

Blue Angels captain is on tv and he said during performances he literally speaks in music which he demonstrated and it in fact was literal music.

>>73037194
Explain?

>>73037129
>
What did he mean by this?

>>73037290
Speak to the other pilots. He uses notes etc. to alter the same word to communicate. He doesn't change the words he changes the music.

>>73037359
What do you mean? Sebastian Bach quit Skid Row and his replacement, my "at the time cousin-in-law", had to endure my tirade about the innovation of Slint in front of our family at a holiday dinner.

No it isnt.

>>73037129
fpbp

>>73037386
Damn, did you squirm in autistic silence after saying that?

>>73037092
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq0z-sxjNlo

>>73037408
Objectively someone may have seen it that way but I was quite commited at the time.

>>73037092

This is a dumb statement. You know what else is mathematically finite? Graham's number. Try counting to that before making a post like this again.

>>73037616
there's still a huge difference between a big number and an infinite number

>>73037092
and yet you'll only listen to a small portion of it in your life

>>73037636

Whoa, you got me there. Look out Perelman, there's a new genius on the block.

Even without accounting for microtonal music, with twelve tones and just working in 4/4 time there are more ways to arrange a single bar of music than you could listen to in multiple lifetimes, using just a quick Fermi estimate. I don't think we need to worry about finiteness here.

File: michael-stevens-03.jpg (10KB, 180x260px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 180x260px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAcjV60RnRw

>>73037701
finiteness is literally the only question being asked

your response "it's pretty big" shows a complete ignorance of the answer and also of what the question means

>>73037766
Alright, if the question is "is music finite" and we're treating this as purely theoretical, the answer is no. One could theoretically split a single bar into arbitrarily many dyadic rational groupings. That's a countable infinity already. If we allow the possibility of imperfect playing, not hitting directly on these subdivisions, we get uncountable infinite ways of simply playing a rhythm for a single bar. Happy? If we set a smallest possible subdivision, assume perfectly uniform tone for each note, and ignore human error, then we get our finite, but still ridiculously huge, case, but this is a bit far-fetched.

>>73037862
But humans can only perceive a finite bpm before multiple tones sound like a single tone. In that case, would the piece not be counted as one of the simpler songs, since they cannot be told apart by ear and therefore have no meaningful differentiation?

>>73037092
Therefore, God exists?

You're on the wrong board, Dr. Craig.

File: IMG_2016.jpg (115KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1300x957px

>space is mathematically infinite
>existence continuously repeats

>>73037741

came here to post this

in a piratical sense probaly but not really in any theoretical one
you could just hook up a few random generators on a synth and have a generated composition until the hardware fails

>>73038045
Human perception has no bearing on the term "mathematically infinite" in the original question. If you would like to add it as a constraint, I would like to refer you to the fact that regardless of however arbitrarily many subdivisions we make, there is some maximum bpm in the reals for which each one is distinguishable, which approaches zero as the number of subdivisions increases but is in fact positive for any given finite subdivision level. Even if two things sound the same, we can determine if they are different in this sense by slowing them down enough. This also allows hearing irrational time separations, so the original point still stands.

>>73037152
Not even with respect to duration. There are infinite rhythms in 64th, 128th, 256th notes, and so on.

>>73037637
Humans can only observe a small portion of anything infinite in their lives.

>>73037092
Maybe if you stopped the development of new instruments, effects, and recording gear. Otherwise there's going to be new sounds to use in new songs being pumped out all the time

>>73037092
We can all just agree that OP is wrong as fuck though right,?