On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:20:07 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 04:24:14 -0500, John Fields
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:23:57 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:10:10 -0600, hamilton
wrote:
On 8/8/2012 9:57 PM, flipper wrote:
One imagines you meant "voilą," which English speakers, unable to find
them pesky 'foreign' characters on the keyboard, usually type as
"voila."
Kind of looses it umph, when you have to explain it.
Yeah, well, when it remains a mystery it looses some umph too 
Sort of like when a tree falls and there's no sentient being around to
hear it does it make a noise? No, because "sound" is a 'perception'.
Otherwise it's just air moving around.
---
Ah, but noise exists whether or not it's perceived as sound.
You're playing semantics with what was, admittedly, a misspeak on my
part in saying "noise" rather than "sound" but, no.
---
But yes, since the misspeak was what I was referring to.
---
"Noise" is any signal other than the 'desired' signal and that is not
only a 'judgment', requiring a sentient being, but eventually,
somewhere, directly or indirectly, no matter how remote or delayed, it
requires a sentient being to 'perceive' that it is, or was, there.
---
I disagree, since what we now call "noise" existed long before the
sentient beings populating our planet discovered it.
---
It's like "weeds:" a 'problem' I have solved by deciding I 'want' all
those things growing in my yard
---
But that's just your local redefinition of the much broader acceptance
of "weeds" being defined as unwanted plants.
---
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking you can 'scientifically
prove', without having to be there, that there is always noise but
that is no different than the falling tree moving air.
---
True, since even if there's no one there to hear the sound of the
falling tree, the moving air will still make the universe noisier.
---
It's only 'noise' when you attempt to send, and receive, a signal through it
and, like my 'non weeds', one man's radio noise is another man's'window into
the shape of the early universe'.
---
But, unlike your imaginary non-weed-infested field, the noise is there
whether you want it to be or not.
---
In the latter case your 'noise' *is* the 'signal' and your signal is noise.
---
In which case coherent signals become anathema to my measurements and
are, therefore, defined as noise.
--
JF