# TEMPORAL RESOLUTION? Is as good at 5 ms. 5 ms grain of auditory time. That could be 100 clicks in a second (5 ms on, 5 ms off) or 200 Beats per second. 1/64 note triplets at 500 BPM = 5ms each or 200 HZ. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106553

TEMPORAL RESOLUTION? Is as good at 5 ms. 5 ms grain of auditory time. That could be 100 clicks in a second (5 ms on, 5 ms off) or 200 Beats per second.

1/64 note triplets at 500 BPM = 5ms each or 200 HZ.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106553
5ms
1/64 note at 750 BPM
1/32 note tripletS AT 1000 BPM.
Dotted 1/64 note AT 1125PM
1/32 note AT 1500 BPM.

ETC
—————————–
I think the distances in spacetime are close enough that they’re effectively in the same frame.

To which resolution I don’t know but that’s part of what I’m looking for: the graininess of temporal perception. This is the best I’ve seen so far. Many have these really LONG LONG distances like 150ms which is ridiculously long. Even get 150ms lag?
===================
Yes, not really accurate but not noise. For example: 5ms graininess is fine when it’s orderly.
But let’s say there’s a 3ms drift in time between two time scales. It won’t be long before that 3ms drift creeps up to a 5 ms perceptual distinction. So anything engineered for perceptual synchronization has to keep that into account (multiplayer gaming, etc).
===
“Measuring perception is usually measuring perceptable reactions. Like measuring how accurately we can measure.”
Yes. It gets mushy beyond a certain point and that’s ok. But I like know actual perceptual limits.

==

(artifacts of modeling process)
Oh it is. My insistence upon “grain” is a remnant of expecting evenly sized, evenly spaced, perfectly connected when touching pixels or voxels or box-shaped wavespackets without ramping up or down, without chaos periods, etc.
But for me it gives me scope and scope gives me hope. I can ignore all the crap that’s 150ms when I’ve got a nice juicy 5ms to work with finally. Been looking for stuff at this scale and it’s not easy to find outside of electronics. Nice to see it in humans.
—–
t’s all about maintaining the illusion. As we grow into this technology we create, our expectations grow higher which improves our resolution capabilities.
Look at CGI. I love how “last year’s CGI” will always look like crap to young people because they expect via environment it and their ability to critique is more finely tuned automatically.
Adults can see it too of course but I love how natural it is for kids to be like “fake” on viral videos AND to explain why.
====
We create what we say is already so. What’s the latin? ex post facto? I dunno. Top down causation in any rate. I think it’s amazing just the same.
Discovering what ontologies work for me has been and continues to be a fun journey. Discovering “ontological plurism” as an acceptable thing was wonderful as it’s the kind of meta ontology that works for me.
==
I’m interested in generally accessible limits to human processing speeds and capabilities.
For example, finding a 5 ms auditory “grain”:
a) resonates with my experience of experienced time – that is, 5 ms is reasonable.
b) means any adaptive hardware / software solutions can’t be stupid and be working at the n400 range. I mean 400ms is almost half a second, and I’ve seen studies of things that find that a victory resolution.
At some point, I will also be looking at human limits of before/during/after. But knowing that 5ms is valid I can ignore the bulk of this kind of research as MOST don’t go down to this level at all.
===