You are not logined.
Actions: LANGUAGESIGN UPLOGIN
HOMEARTCHIVESYNERGYNEWSHELP
SITO: gridcosm: discuss!  
Gridcosm
sito.synergy.gridcosm
"...Christ will come at 10:00" help: Viewing a discussion message
by Oh [lah SITOme]  2017-03-06 16:01:13 [36632]
Like Faye Dunaway with the LAH-LAH envelope? https://...gridcosm?level=4064

-Probability rules for "Natural" or unbiased music

+movie synchronicities*-

(an Oh Dissertation/ Simultaneous Hunanamus)

((ie the undisputed facts of Film/ music synchronicities))

(*this subject applies as a preliminary and prerequisite

baseline reference for postulating any sort of probility rules

for biased or intentional sourced synchronicities. In other

words, before we specualate or postulate theories on the

culpability of sources to be intentional or biased by proxy to

a common form or rule or source or table or theory or law or

scheme, we must examine the 'natural' mathematical rules of

hypothetically unbiased sources. that is to say films and

music or an other analagous data sets that are factually

nonrelated.

One must also obviously conclude that anyone that actually

produced 'biased' sources or intentional synching by some

rite, would have aswell done the math on exactly what is

happening when a song is playing to a movie, if any attepmt to

manage the phenomenon on a practical or acurate or

signnificant level had been truly applied. How else would you

optimize your output right? lol.

this is also exactly what a skeptic would do to explain away

synching as "unintentional"(the party line being that

intentional synching is conspiracy theory and that the high

probability of natural synchronicity supports the notion. The

problem with this cop-out is invisibly obviouse to the skeptic

because it asks those who have seen synchs that are supected

of being intentional to accept that difinitive levels of

precision are more likely accidental than on purpose. But if

it looks built, isnt it likely it was? No one wonders if a

chair is man-made or natural...)

But lets just assume that we are unbiased. lets just look at

whats going on in synchs.

so we start by understanding what happens on a hypothetical

natural. Or rather the simplest and unavoidable parts first

Synch Laws:

____________________________________________________ all possibles = (mundane + significant)

significant = (positive + negative))

The difinitive quantites of the hypothetical natural

[mun + sig = all]

[sig = pos + neg]

The binary assuptions of the hypothetical natural:

[Mun = sig]

[pos = neg]

we must assume a binary equality in order to have any sort of

refereance to an actual value.

we have to assume that since the the sources are

hypothetically unbiased then all the data of the the total

source set is, for all practical purposes to getting started,

equally likely, as they are hunanimosuly influenced by thier

own universally unbiased nature.

have to! Because we know that the likelyhood of an event being

mundane or sigificant is completly indipendant of its own

nature.

remember we are looking for the probability of a sync being

intentional or not by comparing it to a hypothetically natural

one.

mathematically speaking, our opinions are expost facto and

dont even matter! I know its confusing defining terms but they are all equally

arbitrary.

we arnt even looking at the probability of the observor to

find an event significant, just assuming an even potentiality in an unbiased source, where clearly the probability of categorization depends soley on the number of categories itself.

And we have yet to quantify the event. How do you measure synching anyway? Time? Number of

comonalities? Quality? What exactly is the currency?

well lets get on with the logic of purelly unintentional synch

allready

we have defined the parts of a synch ie the initial categories

of what happens in a synch:

an interaction between lyrics and film/captions is either:

mundane (not signficant or synchy in any way, to a

hypothetical observer) OR significant(to the hypothetical

observer).

If any given moment of a synch is Significant, it is either

positive or negative, according to error theory, and interms of being applicabley true or false by implication. This too we

must assume is binarilly equal because the data in the set is

assumed to be of the same natural source, or rather equally influenced by nothing. good or bad if its a

significant event its all gasoline and it all burns at the

same rate and temp.

these assumptions have to be fair enough because the hypothetical natural is similar to an unobserved quantum state.

even tho maybe in irl we should just be

looking at the probibility of a hypothetical observer thinking

a synch is a synch?

wdf

but wait. we are attempting to set a baseline for how a non

intentional synch ought to behave so that we can compare that

to suspected intentioanl data, right?

so how can the foundation of this hypothesis be a baited

consession that things are equally good or bad? am i actually

suggesting that good and bad are equally probably?

value and quantity or not synonimous in mathematics. all units

of measurements are relative, but the rules remain the same

its the same old thing. are there more even or odd numbers?

perhaps we on start with something measurable first!?!

maybe look at TIME?

______________________________________________________________

__________ when a person watches or looks for or finds a film + music

synchronicity their are particulare criteria.

assume their isnt.

what we know:

any song can be played along to any part of a film and

observers will say they were in or out of synch. one could set some average values

say a film is 100 minutes for argument sake say measuring in half seconds is a

practical evaluation. a half second margin of error isnt too

bad (alltho the acceptable margins of error in more

professional synching should be upwards of a 1/4, an 1/8 or a

1/10 of a second)

so say theres 12,000 half seconds of film on average. depending on what is synching the formulas are a lil

different when it comes to full album synchs, just

start with single songs.

(ok assume the few minutes we would have to synch to

a film is offset to itself in our average video length

variable V. its not like your gona start a synch with 1 second

left of movie. but also not with 1 second of song. its easeir

to just say its a loop and that any amount of song thats

before or past the start or end of the film is the same

position on the opposite side. so V is indeed V)

it doesnt matter 90 minutes 100 any exponential difference in

these variables based on runtime is smaller than the exponential improbabilites encountered

of the binary hypothetically unbiased model before you score

five points so, an arbitrary run time is addequate. get a grip

so why not. say the total possible number of positions = 1/6000you could do 1/5000. you could measure by the second. just get on with it.

Oh wait thats it right

there are 3 or 4 or 5 or 6000 thousand places to play a song to a

movie. that should tell us something right? so maybe a 1/5000 odds on a singularly correlated( by field error) intentional fim album synch. right. the probabilities ofthe hypothetical ntural would have to be close to that for the common synch to be a naturally occuring thing.(*nb excepting that a metered or proxy based modular type formate could be considered 'natural' interms of the natural mathematical realtionships of incremental data sets)

ok well its back to criteria. what makes anyone of these 6000

things a synch?

lets define some terms. a synch is a song played to a film

that has "synch events". A synch is generally contigent upon

having as little contridictory events or errors as well.

so lets look at the sych event

an event can be measured in time and maybe that gets you some

where.

lets say our average song is 200 seconds. its easy. 3 minutes

20 seconds. so 400 half seconds

we can than say the average film has 6000 positions AND that

the average 1 song synch has 400 distictly measurable events

or moments of play. in order to be a synch some of these events have to be

significant and most have to be good and mostly not bad.

______________________________________________ so start again with the original synch formula

"

S = AxV - PCB/SCB

where S = the amount of time of viable synch playback, which

is equal to A the Audio length times V the video length, minus

what is disqualified by a personal or standard confirmation

bias.

( the basictenant of error theory) which says ANY possibility is infact in synch UNLESS it

is DISQUALIFIED by a personal or standard confirmation bias.

As counterinuitive as it seems it is simpler to say 'what

makes NOT a synch'. but how can this lend itself to the

hypothetical natural when its detemined by the PCB/SCB? again you might as well be looking into the probabilities of the bias itself.

but assume there is a heaven and for probability purposes its

possibile to have a song that plays at anypoint in a movie and

still seems synchronized if not intentional to the observer.

So the Confirmation Bias Formula, or ERROR THEORY, says that

"

if you think its synchs" = everything minus "if you think it

doesnt synch

"

it synchs or it doesnt, and whos to say? especially in a hypotheticall unobsereved environment. thats why yhe assumtion of equality in the unbiased natural is a fair baseline for comparison before you can begin to evenspeculate as to weather synch events are naturally common, engineered, or are the byproduct or recidual sideeffect of metered or intervalaic systems.

forget word frequencies and language patterns and cultur and

mood all the other minutia of things one might think could

influence a synch.

just say that for the hypothetical natural, theres no

accounting for why an event may be significant nor weather it

is positive of negative if it is. It only suggests that the

probability of a type is only dpentandt on the number of types

exctly because it cant be dependant on anything else.

So mun = sig because mun + sig = all and 'all' has a unified lack of bias in itself, so its

componentn parts must also.

sig = (pos + neg) for the same reason.

weather we like it or not this is the only fair place to

stand. but wait thats only 3 categories! well call it mun = mun1 + mun2. maybe mun1 is when 2 things

dont mean shit and mun2 is an event where the audio offers no

relevant data to correlate.

either way the probabilty here is the same there are 4

categores determining probabilty of what any event might be:

50% mun 25% sig pos 25% sig neg

this is the assertion of the hypothetical natural. the reason

it is usefull is becaus it will give us a comprable baseline

to compare to other probability models.

since we have defined a synch interms of sync events in a set

of total events disqualified by errors we can formulate a

baseline probability for the number of positive synch events

as well as a lack of errors. this can tell us the

hypothetically natural improbability of a synch based on the

number of error free positive events. does this really make

sense?

remember our song has about 200 event moments

Of course one could define a significant, positive event as a

literal correlary ie the same word. this interactions happen

in fields of events and thats ok, look at what has been

said;

of the 400 events, 200 are significant, 100 are positive and

100 are negative.?

thats doesnt seem right. isimply because some sync points take more than an instant to happen but most of them are instant. and theres not 100 of them! kinda makes you think about that old MTV 6 second attention span standard...

so what is being counted counting? if a word or a drum synchs its only for as long as its being said or played. instantaneous...

how much time is in synch? or how many events seem

syncronized?

How often can a person count or notice a synch event anyway?

if a song says "

blue
" for a moment but the movie is blue for a

minute how much is that?

whats the average number of words in a song got to do with it?

and what does the potentiality of a singular postition have to do with the potentiality of the whole field? surely a a song with the name of the character in the movie has a higher chance of at least that corelarry right?

What if we are lineing up beads instead?

if yur listening to sunglasses at night and the guy in the

movie is wearing sunglasses at night the entire time what is

that?

Perhaps we can leave out the positives of the hypnat using

error theory.

In otherwords we have concluded that the odds of everything in a sync being right = to the odds of nothing happening at all? perhaps not.

perhaps its expontentially imrprobaly based on the number of errors consecutivly avoided.

so theres a song playing to a movie.

(perhaps sig and mun intervalwise have to be adjusted to reflect the rate of

information observed by the obserervor.)

if any hypnat event is 25% error? are there typically 100

errors a song? no.

look at the literal coerrilary itself:

nothings goin on and then something in the song and the movie

is the same. it hapens over and over in a good synch.

even if you could calculate the probabity of non-error i mean

jesus probability doesnt begin to define a synch...

but try again anyway.

if the hypnat pos and neg are assumed to be the same rate then we can count a neg for each pos we count!

1 pos = 25% chance if for every positive ther is a neg than! 3/4 of the pos are non error

if P is the number of positives in an error free synch

than each pos is only 75% as likely if P = N:

1P = 25% .25^p

2P = 6.25 3P = 1.57 4P = .394

if 1 N free per P = 75% or 25x .75^p

P(0N) = 18.75 2P = 14.06 3P = 10.54 4P = 7.91 5P = 5.93 6P = 4.44 7P = 3.33 8P = 2.50 9P = 1.87 10P = 1.40

25

wrong

ok ok we arnt (thinking outloud...)

the hypothetical natural applied to observed events...

so the term all = all observed. der ta der

make a distinction between our Audio interval value and

observed Adio value..

Our avg song has 400 half second conmparible events.

or 100 obs. 2 second events.

50 are mun 25 are p and 25 are n

25p ive seen 25 significant things in a sync so thats

believable.

so the hypnat would say a synch is totally probabable

but the point of the hypnat is that we have found a

probability for n relative to p.

what are the odds of 25P0N if p and n are = probable??

what are the odds if they are even lol

p = 25% n = 25% p0n = 18.75

.018

point is you get an exponentially unlikely (less than 1 percent) probability after about 10 or 20 positive corelarries with no negating errors if you use the probabilities of the hypothetical natural.

it dwarfs the 1/5000 "

gotta be ateast one good place to play this song to this flic) probability in terms of rareness.

i conclude that the probabilities of a hypothetical unbiases or natural set or sources shows the average error free synch is highly unlikey

as to tweather they are intentional or a byproduct of metered, intervalaic common denominatoris or an intentional proxy is unclear

In reply to:
Re: Thank God for jokes.
Replies:
but meh

Active/New discussions on SITO have been moved to Google Groups.

Please check out the SITO general and Gridcosm topics over there.

OLDER THREADS - for archival reference only
[compact]=[next 90]help: Discussion message list
you want a tast of my jumbostyle
 noh  17-04-22 12:59
i will eat them
 noh  17-04-22 12:58
oops
 noh  17-04-22 12:57
Re: I gridcosm all day.
 Oh  17-04-22 12:52
I gridcosm all day.
 Oh  17-04-22 12:47
That escalated quickly.
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-22 01:26
Re: [no subject]
 Ed Stastny  17-04-21 22:40
BROKEN!!!
 Yann Kemper  17-04-21 04:44
[no subject]
 Yann Kemper  17-04-21 03:07
Inactivity
 Yann Kemper  17-04-20 14:52
Re: SAZ
 Yann Kemper  17-04-20 02:41
Re: SAZ
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-20 02:40
Re: SAZ
 Yann Kemper  17-04-20 02:33
Re: SAZ
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-20 02:32
Re: SAZ
 Yann Kemper  17-04-20 01:30
Re: SAZ
 Yann Kemper  17-04-20 01:30
Re: SAZ
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-19 23:51
SAZ
 Yann Kemper  17-04-19 02:50
Re: EHO & JIT
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-04 06:22
Re: EHO & JIT
 Yann Kemper  17-04-04 02:29
Re: EHO & JIT
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-03 23:16
Re: EHO & JIT
 Yann Kemper  17-04-03 18:47
Re: EHO & JIT
 Sein und Zeit  17-04-03 04:44
EHO & JIT
 Yann Kemper  17-04-03 00:42
Anniverasry
 Yann Kemper  17-03-30 02:07
Re: [no subject]
 MRM  17-03-24 16:15
[no subject]
 Yann Kemper  17-03-23 23:29
probly cant trust him tho
 Oh  17-03-07 04:13
and OMG I am the winner.
 Oh  17-03-07 03:50
actually the joke was (COSM SYNCH)
 Oh  17-03-07 03:32
MKC and i have history of sharing movie + music synchs
 Oh  17-03-07 03:22
Re: and actually
 Yann Kemper  17-03-07 01:38
and actually
 Oh  17-03-07 01:10
test results
 Oh  17-03-07 00:50
the thing about the runtime arbitrary is
 Oh  17-03-06 19:11
A case in point: Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon + Robert Palmers 'Simply Irresistable'
 Oh  17-03-06 18:17
That would acctually be plausable deniability wouldnt it?
 Oh  17-03-06 17:22
but meh
 Oh  17-03-06 16:34
"...Christ will come at 10:00"
 Oh  17-03-06 16:01
Re: Thank God for jokes.
 Mike Casey  17-03-06 10:07
Thank God for jokes.
 Personal Confirmation Bias  17-03-06 04:48
Re: hi MKC
 Nata Lukas  17-02-22 08:04
Re: hi MKC
 Mike Casey  17-02-22 07:15
hi MKC
 Nata Lukas  17-02-22 04:58
Re: Beautiful Level!
 Sein und Zeit  17-02-16 01:11
Re: Beautiful Level!
 Nata Lukas  17-02-16 00:14
Beautiful Level!
 Yann Kemper  17-02-15 23:46
Cool gridcosm esque zoom.
 Yann Kemper  17-02-13 23:11
Re: or am i way offbase here idk
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-12 21:59
Re: StarPlateV / remember Thunder Trucks?
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-12 20:36
StarPlateV
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-12 20:23
Synchronicity
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-12 20:08
Re: Be you angles? /Sure
 Yann Kemper  17-02-12 16:39
I found it
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-12 07:28
Re: Be you angles? /Sure
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-11 02:51
Re: Be you angles? /Sure
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-11 02:40
Re: Be you angles?
 noh  17-02-11 01:22
Be you angles?
 Yann Kemper  17-02-11 00:06
[no subject]
 Yann Kemper  17-02-09 01:15
Re: Get out of my head SAZ
 Sein und Zeit  17-02-08 21:18
Re: Get out of my head SAZ
 Nata Lukas  17-02-08 18:26
Techniques/filters
 Yann Kemper  17-02-08 00:57
Re: Get out of my head YZN
 Nata Lukas  17-02-07 21:33
Re: Get out of my head YZN
 Yann Kemper  17-02-07 21:29
Re: Get out of my head YZN
 Yann Kemper  17-02-07 21:29
Re: Get out of my head YZN
 Sein und Zeit  17-02-07 21:16
Get out of my head YZN
 Sein und Zeit  17-02-07 21:14
Re: 4140
 Yann Kemper  17-02-07 03:38
Re: 4140
 Sein und Zeit  17-02-07 03:30
4140
 Nata Lukas  17-02-07 01:50
Re: YZN Blows Goats?
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-04 17:37
YZN Blows Goats?
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-04 17:14
Re: YZN loves fruit
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-04 01:52
Re: YZN loves fruit
 Yann Kemper  17-02-04 01:38
YZN loves fruit
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-04 01:36
SAZ in full on God mode
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-04 01:32
Why im dedicating the rest my life to gridcosm wether you like it or not (part 1)
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 20:25
Re: SAZ 4140 A3 is sick
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 17:40
Its ok to be jeluss of my awesome
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 17:05
Dear NLT prickface,
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 16:23
Talking to NLT all day as i dominate him and gridcosm completley
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 05:55
Ok i made an awesome C3 for 4140
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 05:39
Ill just do some fat chicks vagina
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 05:30
How about a bare breaseted african with tags hangin from her nipples and amchete just lobbing one of the moff?
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 05:24
I bet YZN has never even drank a moxie
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 05:14
Re: SAZ 4140 A3 is sick
 Nata Lukas  17-02-03 05:03
SAZ 4140 A3 is sick
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 04:49
I'd play a square but
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 03:58
LMAO
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 03:49
what else did i have on my mind oh yeah if id sunglasses at night to terminator im totally doing this to it
 Oh / Brock Lee  17-02-03 03:45
ALL CONTENTS OF SITO.ORG © 2017 SITO.ORG and/or RESPECTIVE ARTIST(S) : ⚠ :)
Contact SITO  |  About SITO  |  Make a Donation  |  Site Map  |  RSS Feed  |  Hosting provided by TOONLET :(   Apparent Systems, Inc.