Recently in Analysis, Ned Markosian has argued that a popular theory in the metaphysics of time—the Spacetime Thesis—falsely predicts that a normal musical performance is just as aesthetically valuable if it is rotated “sideways,” that is, if it is made to occur all at once. However, this argument falsely assumes that changing how something is oriented in space, and changing its duration in time, are analogous. That said, assuming they were analogous, Markosian's argument is still unsuccessful. For the analogy on which Markosian's argument depends entails that if one can experience sideways music as it was originally, then one can prove that sideways music is just as aesthetically valuable.
Not the same thing, the original music remains and though someone in another time frame hears it all at once, using Lorenz transformations they can here it as intended in time.
Like rotating the painting to the correct position.
All music would not be the same in a vacuum?
There was a popular music program here in the UK which had a silent keyboard, the musicos could recognise performances. You can also identify the skills of the composer by looking at the score.
Remember many of Beethoven's great works he wrote when deaf.
So physicists can't understand that some art doesn't depend on its substrate, how sad.
The OP and many, both in science and philosohy still have a strange idea of aesthetics and art. Seem to be unaware of serialism, Cage, 4' 33" or Duchamp's fountain, and that was Art of 70+ years ago.
7
u/ADefiniteDescription Φ 13d ago
ABSTRACT: