Paper as a memory register can hinder creativity

In problem solving, I noticed that using paper to write notes on, or to track my thought process would ultimatly obstruct the generation of a novel solution. Most notably, this pattern emerges in difficult problems, requiring extensive imagination, observation and aspect recognition. I think the reason is quite straightforward. Intricate concepts cannot be represented on paper. Viewing paper as a storage medium, it is evident that it can be used to record statements or symbolic expressions. This is usefull because the reserve of information that can be immediatly memorized and quickly recalled is relatively small and is fast exhausted. The central observation here is once again an instance of my foundational conjecture upon the kernel of intelligence - forward-backward interaction and emergent properties.

A particular habit emerges, when using paper to register the thought process. Thinking is discretely partitioned to generate expressions that can be recorded on paper. This not only bounds imagination, but focuses thinking on irrelevant, or obvious information; it focuses thinking on static data, rather than the creation of new information. For the sake of this discussion, information is a static representation of some process. Information does not create new information. Instead, some sort of process must occur. I believe this process is the cradle of intelligence and by its nature of being a process it cannot be represented through a timeless medium. Its very essence is held in its existence in time and vice-versa.

The practical observation is that I can better work with concepts purely in my mind, without paper. I notice this time and time again.

Leo G - Supersonic released on DeepBlue

The track 'Supersonic' was released, under my Leo G moniker, on DeepBlue records. The official release date was August 7th, 2006; the track was originally signed in October of 2005, along with 2000 Years of Solitude, which is scheduled for release next. Supersonic was release as both a 12" vinyl and a CD. The B-side of the vinyl features the Martin Roth remix. The CD also has an ambient remix of 'Supersonic' that I did just prior to release. 2000 Years of Solitude will also be released under the Leo G moniker. I don't yet know who will be the remixer. Knowing Rich Mowatt from Solar Stone (DeepBlue founders) I will be doing an ambient remix of 2000 Years of Solitude as well.

The original version of 'Supersonic' is definatly progressive trance. It is progressive in the sense that there is no sudden esclation or release. Instead, the atmosphere emerges slowly throughout the entire track, cascading to a climax towards the end and then fading away. The atmosphere hinges upon the use of overdriven pads and strings. I did a lot of experimentation of overdrive, using both structured and unstructured amplification algorithms. The chords and arrangements are partially unstructured and unpredictable, yet still designed to carry the main theme. 'Supersonic', like most of my tracks, was written to convey a particular state of mind. It is not so much an emotion, or a concrete idea, but instead it is solely a representation of a trance. It conveys freedom and beauty in purely musical symbols and in a sense exemplifying the notion of music existing as its own concept, without implied relation to ideas that can be easily expressed with words.

The Martin Roth remix of "Supersonic" is a harder, more club/dance oriented version of the original, featuring a new central theme. This version is less progressive and more fit to the style of Armin van Buuren's "A State of Trance". Martin Roth overlays the atmosphere of the original over a very well programmed bassline and synths. This version will be more the more popular one.

I also did an ambient/chillout version of "Supersonic" sticking closely to the concept of the original. This mix carries a lot of tension, which does not neccesarily make it the best chillout track. I use the same overdrive pads from the original and add a lot of background strings, pads and effects achieved in various ways. I change the piano sections slighting and leave the main string arrangement. I aslo implement a new string section, backed by cut-out piano chords, which was written to fit with the ambience of the reas of the track. Rich seems to really like this remix.

The next track up for release on DeepBlue is "2000 Years of Solitude" which has a far more epic trance feel. Sweeping pads, dramatic chords, cascading pianos, gated choirs, etc. This track is less subtle than "Supersonic" yet still bears the natural and organic production style. I always try to stay away from producing trance that underlines that fact that it was made using digital equipment.

The Axiom of Choice - Part 1

One of the most surprising and astonishing axioms in mathematics, simply by the means of its assertion is the axiom of choice. Its assertion is extremely elementary, and yet this is precise fact, this nature of it portrays deep profound properties of thought, mathematical thought in particular. It has many formulations. One of them basically states that given a collection, or a set of non-empty sets, it is possible to choose one element from every one of those sets, in this way forming a set which has one element in common with every set in this set of sets. The sets in the set of sets, can be sets of anything, other sets or numbers (which are sets as well), etc. At this point the statement of the axiom seems empty, its truth being soo implicit. After all, if you have a collection of sets, which have say at least one number in them, it seems obvious that you can choose an element from the first set, then the second, and so on. Every set in this collection of sets is non-empty by assumption and so has at least one element, which we can choose. So what wrong? One inconsistency in the former logic was the use of the word 'first'. This word, albeit invisibly, implies a great deal. Namely, it implies that one has determined an ordering on the set of things from which one chooses a first element. For otherwise, 'first' has no meaning. What does 'first' mean? That there is nothing before that first element? Then what does 'before' mean? To define these terms would be to define an ordering on the set, or essentially a set of rules which define a first element, and the next, etc. So that can be very simply. Lets say for instance we are talking about a set of apples. I can throw these apples on the ground, and then I can specifically define the first element to be the one closest to me in distance, the second element is closes to me in distance if the first were removed and so on. Then in this way I have an ordering and so I can take the first set and choose an element, which must be possible since its non-empty. Here I do not specify the ordinal position of the element I am choosing, simply that I am choosing an element and so the discussion of ordering does not apply here. What is wrong here? The next inconsistency arises when we speak about sets which have an infinite number of elements. More specifically, sets, the elements of which cannot be counted or basically aligned with any number. More in part two...

Walt Whitman

...read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life...and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body...

Beauty Part 1 - The epistemology of beauty

This is a first in a series of posts by which I will attempt to define and convince myself of the truth of the definition of what beauty is. I wish to do this because beauty is what I value most in life, be it visual, musical, mathematical, etc. Maybe this is due to my being very passionate about certain things. This leads me to relate beauty to passion, the former being a manifestation of the latter. Once again I notice the reccuring theme of one type of information - beauty being the representation of another - passion. Often times, beauty seems to represent many different things, the concept itself being so abstract, yet I still feel it can be defined and its concept can be put onto solid ground. Offcourse I can always say that beauty is that which one is attracted to, but that to me does not truly encompass its essence. Moreover, I believe beauty can be defined in fairly objective way, so that what someone can be attracted to may not be beauty. I keep some conviction in the phrase 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' but I also think many of these beholders do not know what beauty is, or hold plagued views of what it is. They are plagued by the same forces that create those qualities of mankind that all regard with contempt, those forces which give birth to minds who do not create, but instead destroy. Beauty is universal by the same means that the laws of mathematics are, and to that extent I believe it possible to convice those who have defective views of the ones that are true - just as someone can prove to another a mathematical theorem, by stepping through the elementary laws and concepts. To this end, I behold the creed that all human beings share a certain degree of understanding, through atomic rules of logic which are inherent from the physical laws that govern our biological existence. One such universal rule might be the common understanding that a set of 3 things combined with a set of 4 things, forms a set of 7 things, countable not neccesarily by a number, which is offcourse a far more developed concept, but by means of matching the elements of this set with something else, and getting a consistent result. So, given this collection of elementary principles, I am further assured that beauty can be defined.

The Secret Garden

There was every joy on earth in the secret garden that morning, and among those joys was a delight more delightful than all because it was more wonderful.

Mathematics

From a philosophers, or more precicely from the most general point of view (in the desire to arrive at something all-encompassing), mathematics is the search for definable structures that emerge from the interactions of a set of axioms and rules of derivation. The important term to note is interaction, and 'action' in particular, because it specifies that a certain action is part of what mathematics is. In other words, mathematics is not static, for otherwise the mere existence of a set of rules of derivation and axioms would be mathematics, which is obviously not the case. The practical observation is that mathematicians enact the process, and study the interactions, which they in turn generate. The backward-forward correlation pattern emenates once again. A further observation is that the type of action can be defined in rather absolute and concise way. This action is the transformation of one set of information into another. Thes existence of these transformation, and particularly their existence as the clockwork of mathematics shines throughout every theorem, or theory at the most elementary and abstract level, converging into nothing and diverging into infinity.

Music

Music is the strife to discover what music is. The manifestation of beauty through an essence woven into the fabric of time, constantly arriving, constantly receding and leaving an ethereal after-glow which echoes across the neural web to finally become conceived, grasped and defined. One enjoys music by sensing and almost predicting its motions, creating tension and release, which is a recurrent pattern, emerging from the very structure of our universe.