Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hidden LightThe Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius,  it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Read More…

Comments
Here is the link to the book Dr. Sheldon has listed: Hidden Light: Science Secrets of the Bible http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Light-Science-Secrets-ebook/dp/B003XYFO0G/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2 I liked this review of the book: "Hidden Light" is an exciting book, far different from the usual "science and religion" books. "Hidden Light" is not an attempt to convert the nonbeliever. Instead of attempting to argue, reconcile or apologize, Dr. Medved bridges the cultural gap between the language of Torah and the language of science, revealing an elegant, unified universe of endless fascination. Dr. Medved, a respected scientist and physicist who once served as NASA's principal investigator on the Gemini project, takes his reader on an eye-opening tour of Cosmology, Astronomy, Mathematics, Chemistry, Seismology and Archaeology, demonstrating that the more science reveals, the closer it is aligned with a rational and faithful reading of the Torah (Jewish Bible). Medved never demands a leap of faith, never asks you to look the other way while he glosses over an inconvenient argument. His reasoning is rigorous; his thinking straight; his conclusions compelling. It is a tour-de-force, the distillation of decades of scientific and Jewish study, and destined to be a classic text of intellectual thinking. You will never read a scientific article -- or the Bible -- in quite the same way again.bornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
gpuccio you state: "But again, we cans serenely agree to disagree on that" Well maybe I can sincerely disagree with you about the ontological proof, but I sure am not serenely disagreeing with you.bornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
BA: No problem, we can well disagree on something... :) I appreciate you quote from Romans: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." But you could maybe agree that the concepts in this quote apply better to cosmological arguments than to a purely logical deduction. You quote: “God then is the Being that couldn’t possibly not exist.” I agree that the statement that there is an Absolute Being is the only reasonable inference, given the reality we live in, but again I believe that the reasons for that are empirical and rational, and not merely logical. The laws of logic are one of our best cognitive tools, but they are not "absolute" (in the highest sense). God is absolute. He exists because He exists, and not because of a logical necessity deducible from our mind's rules (created by Him). We, and our logical rules, exist because He exists, and not the other way round. That's why I love cosmological arguments: they walk the reasoning in the correct direction. But again, we cans serenely agree to disagree on that. For me it's not really an important point. Going to more important matters, I think we can feel God's presence everywhere, because He is really inside us. That was Brother Lawrence's experience for all his life. We don't really need nature. But, especially in the beginning, nature is a wonderful and powerful reminder.gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
[quote]#77 Aleta -- Why does 1+1=2 depend on God? Because we need something between 1 and ?. We need something between Parmenides and Heraclitus. We need something between Hinduism and Islam, between Buddha and Allah. We need a rule of arithmetic that God uses, but doesn't abuse. When you ask "what is a rule?" or "what is truth?" , these other religions will either tell you "whatever you want it to be" or "whatever God wants it to be". The first answer gives relativism, the second answer gives arbitrary nominalism. To stand between these two antipodes that have swallowed mathematicians and empires, takes a belief in a special kind of God, a special kind of reality, a special kind of metaphysics. I can't take you through the foundations of number theory to illustrate these two pitfalls, but I refer you to a PhD in Math and New Testament, my advisor at seminary, Vern Poythress, who wrote on this topic.[/quote] That is about as big of a non-answer that I can imagine. And I was pointed to the article that Sheldon linked to from his advisor, who said, "Yes, non-Christians can do mathematics, but only because God enables them to do so. Only because the Christian God exists and sustains them and teaches them are they able to do mathematics, and to act as if God didn't exist." That is also a non-answer. God is not necessary for 1 + 1 to equal 2. This is just a statement about the meaning of three symbols to represent a concrete situation that anyone can see, whether God exists or not.Aleta
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I still strongly disagree with you simply because I plainly see that God has made it overwhelmingly clear for us to know, with absolute certainty, His existence from His creation from reason alone: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. I simply don't see any leeway for the, excuse my terseness, philosophical mumbo-jumbo junk, such as solipsism, that parades as serious inquiry into reality. Though the preceding applies to all evidence available, but on the ontological argument in particular, here is the slightly corrected concluding statement of the ontological argument: "God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit." The strength of the argument flows from the no nonsense first premise that reality does indeed exist, and flows to the conclusion that there is a necessary existence of God since our reality does indeed exist (at least that is my shortened form of the argument). ,, So thus as long as you take the reality we live in for a given truth then the certainty of the argument's conclusion is without a doubt! Solipsism not withstanding, as the following 'quantum' evidence shows. Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist. Then again I'm not a professor of physics at a major university as Dr. Henry is.) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html I like this statement of your gpuccio: "Brother Lawrence “felt” the presence of God for the first time looking at a tree in winter, and realizing how it would express life again in spring. And he never lost that consciousness." This poem reflects that exact sentiment: Spring's Divine Nature - Inspirational Poem - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4217279 And indeed I think we all 'feel the presence of God', feel closer to God, make 'contact' with God, much more readily in nature than in some stuffy ole church building,,, but then again I have heard many people say that they have felt a 'strong' presence of God in church, as well as I have heard,surprisingly, that people have felt His 'presense' in jail when they 'finally' sought God. Some of my most memorable 'moments with God' have been in nature though: Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995314 Autumn Leaf's Laughter - Inspirational Poem http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181846bornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
BA: I will stay very simple. because the argument is not really so important to me. First of all, I absolutely agree with you that "to know that God does indeed exist, while all fine and well for a person to do, is a far, far cry from knowing God personally". For me, anyway, even "to know that God does indeed exist", so that we are moved to look for Him, is never only an achievement of reason. I have said that many times, and I say it again. Reason is a good adviser, if correctly used, but in the end it is our soul and heart which chooses. Is it possible to be "sure" that God exists, by reason only? I don't think it really is. Not because there are not very strong rational arguments to believe that (there are many). In a sense, I don't believe that we can be absolutely "sure" of anything by reason alone. Inferential cognition can be very sure of many things. I have made many times the example of our inference of consciousness in others. It is a very reasonable inference based on our direct perception of consciousness in ourselves and on analogy, and I think that nobody really doubt it. But, in principle, it is possible to doubt it, as solipsism shows. Inferences are never absolutely certain. But some inferences are supported by inner intuition, and if we accept that support, we can be really sure of them. Consciousness in others in one such inference. For those who listen to their souls, the existence of Gos is another one. But what about deduction? In reality, I have not the highest idea of it. Deductive knowledge is important in logic and in mathematics, and obviously in inferential knowledge too (what we infer must be internally consistent, except in darwinism :) ). But, in the end, deductive reasoning is only as certain as the properties of reasoning and the initial assumptions. And it does not really "add" any truly new knowledge, even if it certainly discovers new aspects of what is already in the premises. So, one can always doubt the initial assumptions, or even the reasoning procedures. You can object that doing that means to renounce all human knowledge, and that is true. Few would agree to that. But my point is that the existence of God is a subject so much greater than us, that we cannot apply the usual rules. I don't believe it is appropriate to "prove" the existence of God starting from the properties of human reasoning, of human words, of human logic. What we are speaking of (God), if He really exists, is the source of all that. That's why I believe that He can certainly be "inferred" from what He has created, but not "proved" that way. The existence of God is, for us, the biggest empirical problem: He can exist or not, be real or not. The answer to that has tremendous impact on our lives. It's more important than anything else. I don't think that a purely logical formulation like the ontological argument, which anyway has left for centuries rather unconvinced a lot of people, even sincerely religious, can do the trick. But the cosmological argument, that is all another matter! An amazing certainty of God's existence can be achieved by the cosmological argument, if only we want to listen "also" to our intuition. Brother Lawrence "felt" the presence of God for the first time looking at a tree in winter, and realizing how it would express life again in spring. And he never lost that consciousness. By the way, if anybody here has never read Br. Lawrence's "The practice of the presence of God", I would highly recommend it. Even to non religious people, really! It's one of the most lovable small books ever written.gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
gpuccio and BA77: I've got a really busy day today and friends coming over for a late birthday get-together so I won't be able to read and respond until late tonight or tomorrow. I'm really sorry about that; I'm dancing as fast as I can today!! :-) But thanks again for taking the time to respond. As always, I greatly appreciate your time and patience. See y'all later!!ellazimm
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
gpuccio you state, 'I have never loved too much the ontological argument. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that the existence of God can be proved deductively.' I strongly disagree with you since, as Dr. Craig, Dr. Plantinga, and others have pointed out in their defense of the ontological argument, as long as the existence of God is logically coherent, then God is the necessary Being that could not possibly not exit, and I see no logical reason that would prevent God from existing. i.e. exactly what parameter is going to prevent a Highest Being from Inhabiting a highest dimension?) Thus gpuccio, to prevent the deduction of the ontological argument from taking place, you must in fact show why the existence of God logically incoherent: Ontological Argument - Plantinga (3:50 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ Yet somewhat like you I am a bit hesitant by just proving the existence of God, by whatever form of reasoning we use, for to know that God does indeed exist, while all fine and well for a person to do, is a far, far cry from knowing God personally: THE EIGHT-FOLD WAY TO KNOWING GOD A Study From The Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter One by Lambert Dolphin Knowing God Personally and Intimately Excerpt: Can a person embark on a journey that leads to knowing God? The overwhelming claim of the Bible is yes! Not only can anyone of us know the Lord and the Creator of everything that exists, we are invited---even urged---each one of us, to know him intimately, personally and deeply. http://ldolphin.org/Eightfld.htmlbornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
ellazimm: another aspect I would like to express. Gil has spoken of the "ignorance and stupidity of materialist philosophy". Well, in a sense, I agree with him. I do think that "materialist philosophy", at least in many of its most recent forms, is "ignorant and stupid". That is in no way intended by me as an offence to the people who have chosen it (I believe that many atheists find religion stupid, and still can be respectful of religious people). A judgement on specific ideas is not a judgement of people. As I have said, at these levels, the choice of ideas is very much influenced by personal factors, and those factors should always be respected, but ideas in themselves can certainly be freely discussed. For me, it is also a question of how respectable some ideas really are, among the many which I don't agree with. There are many ways to be atheists. For example, I have read many reasonable things by Bertrand Russel which I did not agree with, but which remain for me a very good example of fine thinking. I could not say the same for Dawkins, just to give an example. Two ideas, in modern thought, I really consider "stupid": first and foremost, the basic assumption of strong AI theory, that consciousness can be explained as an emergent property of complexity. Frankly, for me that is not even an idea, but an irrational myth, and an ugly one. It is specially despicable, because it denies in essence a whole aspect of empirical reality: the existence of subjective experience as primary data of our map of reality. The second "stupid" idea is, IMO, the basic assumption of darwinian theory, that CSI as we observe it in biological reality can be created by RV + NS. I spend most of my time here trying to detail why I believe that, so I will not repeat myself in this post. You will probably note two things: 1) Those two ideas are subtly related. 2) Those two ideas are hugely widespread and accepted as truth today. Does that mean that I consider most thinking people "stupid"? Certainly not. There are many reasons why intelligent people can believe in a stupid idea. Sometimes, intelligence itself, and an overconfidence in it, can be factor. Does that prove that I am an anticonformist, reveling in the pleasure to believe differently from most intelligent people? I hope it does. As I have said many times, I am, and always will be, a "minority guy". But, being not too intelligent (thanks God! :) ) I have tried to choose for that a very true minority conviction, so that I could have both the pleasure of loneliness and the satisfaction to really believe in what I believe. And I have found ID!gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
ellazimm: to add more specification to my position about the recent debate on mathematics, I would remind that I have described in a recent post two different aspects of nathematics which are specially relevant: 1) It is beautiful and surprisingly elegant 2) It works as a tool to explain physical reality. In a sense, I would consider both those aspects as special forms of the cosmological argument. If we consider our minds (and their mathemathical abilities), and mathematics itself and its object (if we are neoplatonists about that, as I am), as part of the cosmos, then the perfection of mathematics is just another aspect of the perfection of the created universe (fine tuning, etc.). This argument is probably not completely straightforward, but I believe it has a certain validity. The second aspect is easier: the amazing efficiency of a very abstract science like mathematics in explaining a very objective reality like the physical universe remains IMO a very, very strong argument in favor of a common origin of both. And it is difficult to think of a simpler theory, for a common origin of two so different things, than a common originating consciousness who has thought them both. But again, this seems to me a peculiar form of the cosmological argument, and it is IMO inferential, and not deductive.gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
ellazimm: Just to be more clear, I would say that the conviction that God exists is a very very reasonable inference, at least at the beginning, supported by an intuitive certainty of the soul and of the heart, and, as time goes by, by personal experience.gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
ellazimm: this is a blog, and many different "veins" are represented. I would encourage you to be patient. At least, there are very different positons here, on both sides of the main dispute. That cannot probably be said of any blog in this field. Personally, I don't like in tolerance, while I love strong intellectual confrontation. I believe that my friends here are essentiaslly tolerant, but maybe sometimes they are so enthusiast about their points that they may be a little "firm" :) My position is well known: this blog should be mainly about confrontation on the scientific matters more or less inherent in ID theory (which means really a lot). As ID is a very general scientific theory, it is perfectly logical that more philosophical and religious discussions are often appropriate. But here we should be more careful: philosophy and religion are more a matter of personal choice, and the beliefs of all shouild be respected. IOW, in scientific matters confrontation is an intellectual duty. In religion, it is a personal option. At least, that's what I believe. That said, just to be a little bit anticonformist amopng my religious friends, I want to say that, while I am a big fan of the cosmological argument (which, in its modern form, is a very proper ID argument), I have never loved too much the ontological argument. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the existence of God can be proved deductively.gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
This following video is complimentary to the preceding post since it shows Intelligent Design to be found of every size scale we look at in the universe (i.e. universe, galaxy clusters, galaxy, solar system, planet: Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 Further notes: A recently uploaded video: The Human Body - You Are Amazing - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5246456 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Ellazimm,,, Math has given us many stunning proofs for God's reality such as this one: Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html Yet despite this stunning balance of the universe to within just one grain of sand, I saw a dogmatic atheist come along on UD and call the balance meaningless to which I challenged him here in this post,,,
markf you state: “The point that emerges is that the claim that the “universe is just the right size” is pretty meaningless.,,,” Let’s see markf, the size of the universe, as Mr. Arrington referenced, is balanced to within ‘just one of grain of sand’ ,,, And you say it is pretty meaningless,,, markf could you please go out tonight and look up at stars and planets??? ,,, then could you reach down and pick up a grain of sand???,,, and then could you look at the grain of sand??? and Then could you look at the stars again??? repeat a few times,,, and then let this thought sink in,,, If that grain of sand did not exist, out of all the grains of sand in the universe, you would not exist!!! Then put that grain of sand on your desk in front of your computer,, then come back to this blog and tell us again how meaningless that grain of sand is to the size of this universe. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362853
And then corrected him on his appeal to the possibility of variance from one grain of sand here:
“If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for every one that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity.” Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 269 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362862
Yet despite to jaw dropping fact that universe is balanced to within just one grain of sand, and that the universe itself is now known beyond any reasonable doubt to have had a transcendent origin, just as the Bible has always 'uniquely' claimed,, we still get people like you and Aleta that come along on this site and say 'They are almost certain that God does not exist" without ever even providing a coherent reason as to why they are 'almost certain',,, Excuse me ellazimm but your position IS 'ignorant and stupid', and that you would get upset at Gil for calling a spade a spade makes no since. You demand that we give your ideas respect when they in fact deserve none! The ideas deserve exactly what Gil has cone to then for the ideas are in fact ignorant and stupid. ,,, Myself, I find the 'just one grain of sand' mathematical evidence, as well as many other evidences, to tell me something completely different about this universe: My Beloved One – Inspirational Christian Song – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200171bornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
I'm sorry you think that the wonder and joy I find in the physical universe and mathematics arises from a stupid and ignorant viewpoint. I'm also sorry that there seems to be an increasing vein of intolerance and name calling coursing through UD. I'm glad to have a forum where I can come and learn what people in the ID community think and where I can honestly speak my mind as well; that's a real treasure for all of us. But being called a 'no-nothing turd' or being made to feel that my deeply considered mindset is ignorant and stupid . . . . well, perhaps I've outstayed my welcome.ellazimm
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
The fact that the universe is orchestrated with mathematical principles that can be discovered by just manipulating numbers, is one of the most powerful evidences of ID I have discerned. Add to that, of course, that life is orchestrated by the most sophisticated information-processing system ever devised, and ID is transparently obvious. This is not hard to figure out -- unless, of course, one has been blinded from perceiving the obvious by the ignorance and stupidity of materialist philosophy.GilDodgen
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply