Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fibonacci Life

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

galaxyThe Fibonacci sequence is one of those math marvels that even elementary students can appreciate. Like the discovery of the √2, it possesses this element of mystery that makes Pythagoras‘ harmonic series look like a rubber-band shoe-box next to a concert grand. Pythagoras famously drowned the fellow who discovered that √2 was neither even nor odd. It went against his religion. Fortunately for Gödel, the Pythagoreans did not control peer review when he demonstrated that unprovability was a whole lot worse than irrational numbers, but all math was  “incomplete” and unable to exclude ambiguous theorems. But if we don’t demand that math obey our ideas of God, we can sit back an enjoy it. Here’s a YouTube video marvelling at the ubiquity of Fibonacci, calling it the fingerprint of God.

It is a well-worn metaphor, which other mathematicians might reserve for the Mandelbrot set. Physicists, on the other hand, prefer to see this in things like cosmology. Which raises the question, is the Fibonacci series merely a mathematician’s trick, or is there something hiding in the physics? Do the sunflower whorls contain a physical necessity, or merely an aesthetic necessity to match Fibonacci? And if so, then what about the spirals of galaxies? Surely we can say more about Fibonacci than mathematical aesthetics!

(Read more…)

Comments
Aleta: I'll pick Case unproven I think. I did think there'd be more to it than that. I remember reading a book by Mortimer J Adler proposing his ontological proof of the existence of God and it went on for quite a while. (It was a long time ago and I don't remember the details.) And, I'd like to point out to everyone else: I'm not here to debate the existence of God except . . . maybe using a mathematical justification. The comment at 4:45 in the video was just the barest hint of what was going on in the mathematics community at the time as they struggled to attempt to justify EVERYTHING in mathematics based on the fewest possible axioms. It was a real reductionist approach which, in my mind, failed. Bertrand Russell really tried though. And some people think he pulled it off. He started with literally nothing, the empty set, and attempted to create all of mathematics from there. It was attempts like that which got Godel thinking about whether it was possible to prove everything that is demonstrably true about an axiomatic system from within the system. And, he showed (although I don't understand the proof) that it was not possible. There will be things that are true that cannot be shown with a brick upon brick approach. Godel is deep, deep mathematics. I'm not capable of discussing it completely and I think it takes years of study to be able to do that. I hesitate from drawing conclusions outside of mathematics using Godel's theorem owing to it's extreme complexity.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, it's "loaded" website, and that's a generous description. (A more accurate description is "sophomorics", or perhaps even "stupid".) The only way you can get through it is answer "correctly" - i.e., that absolute truth exist. I answered the first question "I don't know whether absolute truth exists or not." Then it wants to know whether I consider that statement "Absolutely True" or "False", but those two choices are a false dichotomy. The correct answer, which is not given, is simply "True" - I don't know whether absolute truth exists. I already said that on the first screen. The statement is a true statement about what I believe. As I said ... pick whatever adjective from above that suits you.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
BA77: Second link, Cantor film I watched the 8:40 (metacafe) version owing to the time I've got at the moment. Nice explanation of some of what Cantor saw. His own proof that there was an infinity greater than the infinity of the natural numbers IS lovely. Turns out the infinity (aleph-naught) of the natural numbers is the same as that of the rational numbers but the infinity of the real numbers is bigger. Fascinating. But . . . proof of God? Or just showing that our axiomatic system of mathematics throws up some pretty weird 'truths'? I completely believe Cantor's result but I, personally, see no evidence of the divine there. Before Cantor came along some people believed in God, some didn't. After Cantor's work was published some people continued to believe in God, some continued not too. I don't personally know of anyone who really understood the mathematics who changed their mind about the existence of God after being exposed to Cantor. That may mean I just wasn't told. I did know a mathematician who once expressed to me that things like that were indications to him of something divine BUT that he was already a believer before seeing it. AND doing the math does not require a theistic world view. There is no faith there; just logic and working from known results.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
BA77: First link: Proof that God exists. First question: I answered truthfully: I don't know if absolute truth exists. Second question: I don't know if absolute truth exists, is this a) Absolutely True b) No. I took the second absolutely true to mean TO ME and I got bounced back to the first question. If I don't know if absolute truth exists then I can only answer for myself and I get no where. Do you think I proved, to myself, that God exists? I don't think I did.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Hmmm. I disagree with you about the necessity of God for math, but disagreeing with someone is not the same as disrespecting them. All I did was ask you a question, and ask you to tell me what you think rather than link to another site. Could you summarize what the BBC video says at 4:45?Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Aleta since you do not seem to respect anything I say, I will respectfully leave you with part 6 of the video "Dangerous Knowledge" in which they actually talk about why just simply agreeing that simple math is true is not sufficient,,,, in fact they talk exactly about the huge struggle that took place just to prove 1+1=2 was true at the 4:45 minute mark BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 6-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqKQ0-T3swYbornagain77
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
BA77 . . . I always wonder what happened in 1977 . . . something wonderful??? Well, that is the central question isn't it? I remember when one of my professors brought it up. I never have been able to decide for myself. And I never found it necessary to decide since I was either pursuing the mathematics for the sheer joy and pleasure, finding ways to model the real world and, finally, teaching it to students. I will try and pursue the links you've provided 'cause I'm curious about the arguments employed. I really have no idea what they might be; I got through an MS degree without hearing any of them! I will admit that my first reaction is: yeah, right. But I will try and find time to look it over. It may be that my own abilities are not up to the discussions in which case I shall admit that. Far enough?ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Why does 1 + 1 = 2 depend on God? You just have to look at a thing, agree to write 1 for that thing, and then add another thing and agree to call that group 2. The truth is right in front of our eyes, and the symbols we use to write about it is an agreed-upon convention. Why is absolute transcendent truth needed to make this true? And no videos or websites, please - what is your answer to that question, ba?Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Ellazimm you state, "there is nothing in mathematics itself that points to anything other than a complicated axiomatic system which occasionally has a particularly beautiful result like Euler’s identity." so Ellazimm do you hold that math is really just an invention of man or do you hold mathematical truths to be discovered by man? If you hold that it is merely a useful invention of man that does not really point to anything that is transcendently real, do you then deny that absolute truth exists? If you do so, as I think following your logic must dictate, then please visit this following web site: This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists – easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Later on Ellazimm you mention Cantor. Have you seen this neat little film on Cantor? Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335 entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90 As you can see, somewhat from the preceding video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God. Thus this following formal proof, which was referred to at the end of the preceding video, shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption: Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html Ellazim, I know you will probably compartmentalize this away as Aleta has done, but the fact is that the math you and Aleta put so much faith is can't be held to be true unless you in fact concede that transcendent absolute truth (God) exists in the first place.bornagain77
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
As a former mathematics instructor with a BS in mathematics I think Aleta has done a fine job laying out the situation from the mathematical side. When I see things like the Fibonacci sequence cropping up in the real world I tend to think there is some common structure or law. And I think it's really important to reiterate that, from a mathematician's point of view, while there are transcendent numbers (it's just a word adopted by consensus) there is nothing in mathematics itself that points to anything other than a complicated axiomatic system which occasionally has a particularly beautiful result like Euler's identity. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of mathematics is messy and ugly, in my mind anyway. Statistics is useful but . . . yuck. Topology is lovely to look at but I could never quite get the hang of it. Graph theory is quite nice at first anyway. (A field that Euler practically invented with his Koningsberg bridge problem.) Analysis has its breath taking moments of awe (objects with infinite surface area but finite volume) and lots and lots of grinding and crunchy slog. Non-Euclidean geometry deserves a mention for being counter-intuitive but finding application in non-Newtonian space. I suppose, like Gauss, I find number theory the purest and most beautiful of all of mathematics with some amazing simple, pure and deep theorems that anyone can understand. BUT it took a few hundred years for someone to messily prove Fermat's Last Theorem. And no one has yet established the Goldbach conjecture. If you REALLY want to pursue the infinite and transcendent in mathematics you should check out set theory. Over a hundred years ago Cantor pioneered the study of different sizes of infinity (soooo cool) and got a lot of people looking at the continuum hypothesis. I still think a lot about the Axiom of Choice and it's many versions including the marvelous Zorn's lemma. Sigh. IF there's something of the divine in mathematics I'd put my vote for set theory. Are there an infinite number of infinities? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
aleta wrote:
"No, the orbits aren’t close to being a Fibonacci series. Also, “the distance of any one planet to the sun is generally equal to the sum of the distances of the planets closer to the sun” is not an accurate statement of the rule that describes a Fibonacci series. You might look up the distances from the sun for each planet and see for yourself."
Don't get so excited about a subjective comment. I did not say it was a fibonacci sequence, I intentiaonlly punctuated with a term "fibonacci-esque". If you don't understand the intention, it simply means there is a semblance of something. And the planets (including asteroid belt) do have a sequence reminescent of a fibonacci sequence. This is subjective, but it is not a hard to see a CLOSE comparison since it is a simple compounding addition sequence. Do your own research on this: "Titius-Bode Law" .....JGuy
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Hi gpuccio - I'm glad you returned to comment. Here are my thoughts, such as they are, on your questions. You ask, "do you think that at least some of the wondeful results we can get, as you say, from “any set of simple rules” could be in some way attributed to the intrinsic power of our fundamental cognitive rules (whatever they are)?" Hmmm, that's a large question, and moves us to psychology as much as anything (which is a much less certain field than math!) On the one hand I certainly believe that all human beings share the same basic cognitive apparatus, in some sense, but I think the content and habits of our thinking can be strongly shaped by our culture, individual personality, and experience. Some people tend to abstract, symbolic thought easily, and some don't. (I know there are students who just "get" math and who love manipulating the symbols to get results, and those who don't.) Throughout history at various times, in the major cultural traditions, there have been people who were good abstract thinkers who have invented the notions and symbols that now form the heart of our math and logic. This formalization has evolved into a tool of greater and greater power, and is part of the means by which we have created our mathematical knowledge. So, in summary (and I'd be interested in trying to think about this some more - time is sort this morning), I think math and logic are abstract formalizations of basic human cognitive functions. Here's a story. A friend (who has a grey beard), playing with my granddaughter (who is learning her colors) , put a little pink piece of paper on her chin that looked like a beard. He asked her, "what color is your beard," and she said "pink. Then he asked, "what color is my beard". She was puzzled for a moment, because she didn't know the color grey, and then he face brightened, and she said, "not pink." That's a basic human cognitive trait - the negation which divides the world into A and ~A, yes and no, the basic binary bifurcation. Also, you write,
I have always thought that the word “agnostic” is usually applied to at least two very different positions… a) A person who has looked for an answer to the major questions about reality, and up to now has found no satisfying one. IOW, this position could be summed up as follows: “I really don’t know if credible answers of that kind exist, but certainly I have not found them up to now”. Let’s call that an “empirical agnostic”. b) A person who believes that those answers cannot be found. IOWs, that kind of agnostic says: “I am reasonably sure that those answers don’t exist”. Let’s call that an “ideological agnostic”. That kind of agnostic is probably not a true agnostic, because he is not agnostic about the truth that answers to the major questions about reality cannot be found.
I think a) is usually called weak agnoticism - it's merely "I personally don't know." However, I don't think b) is an accurate statement of it's counterpart, strong agnosticism. I am, to use a somewhat common term, a strong agnostic: I don't believe we can answer the type of questions you mention. It's not just that I personally don't know, I don't think that human beings can know what the "true" state of metaphysical reality is (or if there is even such a thing.) More later, if you'd like to continue the discussion.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Aleta (#54): Thank you for your thoughtful response. I very much agree with what you say. Regarding point 1), do you think that at least some of the wondeful results we can get, as you say, from "any set of simple rules" could be in some way attributed to the intrinsic power of our fundamental cognitive rules (whatever they are)? It has been recently debated here, and I am aware that positions vary, but I do believe that we should recognized some shared universality (and great efficiency) to at least some cognitive principles: I am not interested in defining them (be they non contradiction, inference, or anything else), I leave that to the people who, like you, deal professionally with mathemathics, logic and some aspects of philosophy. Indeed, I believe that those fundamental principles are vastly intuitive, and rather elusive in their definition. But, if there is some universality in human thought (be it the development of vast logical structures from some basic assumptions and rules, or the inference of vast theories about physical reality), there must be some unifying property in cognitive thought. Again, I am really interested in your position about that. Regarding point 2), obviously, as I am a religious person, for me the most natural explanation is that an original Consciousness has structures reality, and that our personal human consciousness shares at least some properties with that original Consciousness. That is usually summed up in the concept that we are "made in His image". But I appreciate your position. As you define yourself as an agnostic, I would like to ask you a further specification, if you allow it. I have always thought that the word "agnostic" is usually applied to at least two very different position (I will refer in what follows to the "major questions about reality" to signify those vast cognitive problems which are usually the foundation of general philosophical theories about it, such as "does a god exist?", or "is there a final universal purpose to human existence?", or "does life after death exist"?, and so on): a) A person who has looked for an answer to the major questions about reality, and up to now has found no satisfying one. IOW, this position could be summed up as follows: "I really don't know if credible answers of that kind exist, but certainly I have not found them up to now". Let's call that an "empirical agnostic". b) A person who believes that those answers cannot be found. IOWs, that kind of agnostic says: "I am reasonably sure that those answers don't exist". Let's call that an "ideological agnostic". That kind of agnostic is probably not a true agnostic, because he is not agnostic about the truth that answers to the major questions about reality cannot be found. Both categories, obviously, are very different form mere materialists, reductionists and followers of scientism, who definitely have a very structures set of answers to the major questions about reality. So, I would like to know, if you feel like answering, which kind of description you think is nearer to your position (or, if you want, you can give some completely different definition).gpuccio
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Sorry, but I dont have translated some phrases before postin: Where: Todo esto dicho con todo mi aprecio a ti y a lo que escribes. Y ahora sobre el tema, y parodiando la cita de BA: Must be: All this said with all my appreciation to you and what you write, BA. And now on the subject, and parodying the appointment of BA:Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT
Hello again everyone. First I want to spend a few friendly words to BA, which I think can help. I appreciate very much your comments but I see that there are times when you are convinced that putting all your arguments on the table manage to convince others that your ideas or your beliefs are better. That, in one way or another we all do and I think to some extent is positive and good. But you must understand that many times, not the number of arguments, but a good argument, a convincing argument, is the only one who can get out another one of his error. And in such case, you can just get the negative effect, ie, who may be willing to hear a good argument, given that so many of them not convinced, will eventually leave, taking the chance that maybe someone better prepared than you with the appropriate topic to draw from his error to the other person. Do you understand? Another problem is that because we all have obligations and other persons who attend and if done too long what we suggest, many even begin to read it. Todo esto dicho con todo mi aprecio a ti y a lo que escribes. Y ahora sobre el tema, y parodiando la cita de BA: “Sir, {a+b^n}{n}=x, hence God exists—reply!” I tell Aleta: “Sir, e^(pi)i+1=0, hence Evolution Theory is false—reply!” (I dont know if Aleta is Sr or Mrs, but for the sake of the arguments, I assume Sir). Aleta, I can not be shorter, the ball is on your roof. Greetings and friendship for everyone.Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
one more note: How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
to define a photon to information Aleta: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf to define an atom to information Aleta: Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/postsbornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Perhaps we should look at how reality is actually constructed from a empirical point of view Aleta instead of looking from the somewhat esoteric mathematical view: ,,,,But to reflect just a bit more on the teleportation experiment itself, is interesting to note that scientists can only 'destroy' a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has 'created' a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge. Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?" Further reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its 'infinite' information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon 'disappeared' from the 'material' universe when the entire information content of a photon was 'transcendently displaced' from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. 'transcendent' information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. As well, the fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact 'location dominion', of a photon of energy by 'specified infinite information', satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar 'specified location' fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows 'coordinated universal control' of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, regardless of distance, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus 'infinite transcendent information' provides a coherent picture of overarching universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify gravity with the other forces. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. The following article backs up this assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Reflections on the 'infinite transcendent information' framework: The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light, whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight. Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, are concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension 'eternal' inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/best-brainac/article37176-2.html "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this 'timeless' travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the 'time not passing', eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus 'pure transcendent information' is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which 'It' resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586 Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the findings of quantum mechanics. The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914 As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is 'information'. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal space-time framework/dimension (Wheeler; Zeilinger) does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite transcendent information framework that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God possessing infinite and perfect knowledge. This seems like a fitting place for this following quote and verse: "To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." William Blake Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
ba writes, "Aleta, despite all your assurances that all is fine and well in math-land, I ask just one question,, you have unified General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics exactly how?" ba, I thinking you are just trolling now - there is absolutely nothing in what I wrote that says either that "that all is fine and well in math-land" or that I "have unified General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics." I'm trying to describe (more for gpuccio than you, I think) some elements of the interplay between pure and applied math. It's an interesting topic. You don't seem to be interested in actually paying attention to what I write, though, so I will quit addressing myself to you, and quit writing unless someone else (gpuccio, perhaps) wants to continue the discussion.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
ba writes,
Let’s try this again Aleta, [snip of things he's said quite a few times before] For e,i, and pi are in fact the language in which God has written this universe, to paraphrase Galileo.
Let's try this again: I know you think that math reflects the Mind of God, and so do all other theists, I would imagine. But there are other, non-theistic, ways of understanding the mathematical nature of the world. I 1) don't believe that the we can actually know which, if any, are true, but 2) I don't believe at all that the Christian God is the explanation Just accept that - it does not add anything to the discussion to repeat endlessly that you think math is from the mind of God. I accept that you believe that. I ask that you accept that I don't.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Aleta, despite all your assurances that all is fine and well in math-land, I ask just one question,, you have unified General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics exactly how?bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
ba, I am quite familiar with the time/space issues of both relativity and quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiments, etc. Let me relate this my previous post (58). Classical Newtonian physics was based on the idea of the Cartesian coordinate plane: space existing uniformly and linearly in three dimensions, with time operating independently, also uniformly and linearly. This was a mathematical model that at the time seemed self-evident and God-given. However, we now know that this model does not in fact represent reality accurately. Coordinate geometry is still as true as it ever was within the conext of its own self-contained system, but it is no longer considered to be universally applicable. To refer to gpuccios two points, 1) didn't change the pure math), but 2) did (the application to the real world.) Now our representations of reality, at the quantum level or at very high speeds, require a much more mathematically sophisticated representation - one that would be impossible if mathematicians hadn't developed new mathematical tools that go far beyond the mathematics of Newton's time. (For instance, Feynman's path integrals which are used to analyze quantum interactions.) Furthermore, while the coordinate plane corresponds well with our intuitive, experiential picture of the world (think walking around in time in a room with two walls and a floor), the modern view is impossible to visualize. All we can do is manipulate the mathematics - we can't really "understand" it by analogy to anything in our everyday experience. Ba writes that this model defies space and time, and that "most people consider defying time and space to be a ‘miraculous & supernatural’ event. I know I certainly do!" This is part of ba's "problem", in my opinion. The new model of space and time defies the old model, but that is because the old model we now understand is only true (approximately) when applied to an everyday scale. The new model isn't any more supernatural than the old model - it's just that we had to change our understanding of what is natural to accomodate the new evidence. Nature is not the way we once thought it was - that's all. So once again, the interplay of pure and applied math has played out. We had a mathematical system, coordinate geometry, that was wonderfully true, and full of delightful results. We applied that model to the real world, and by golly it worked! However, as time went by, new evidence started to show places where the Cartesian model didn't work anymore. Therefore, new mathematics was developed, or mathematics that had been developed but not applied was brought into the picture. The new models were then applied to the new evidence, and they worked better. Nature didn't change, but with the help of new mathematical tools our understanding of nature changed. Nothing supernatural came into the situation - our understanding of nature just broadened. And last, and on a different topic, ba writes, "So I guess the question I have for you Aleta, is what do you believe to be the foundational entity of reality if you are not a hard core materialist?" I repeat: I am a strong agnostic. I don't think it is possible for us to know what metaphysical reality, if any, is "behind", in whatever way that may be, our universe.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Since we are on Euler's Identity so much this story may amuse you,,, Personal philosophy and religious beliefs Euler and his friend Daniel Bernoulli were opponents of Leibniz's monadism and the philosophy of Christian Wolff. Euler insisted that knowledge is founded in part on the basis of precise quantitative laws, something that monadism and Wolffian science were unable to provide. Euler's religious leanings might also have had a bearing on his dislike of the doctrine; he went so far as to label Wolff's ideas as "heathen and atheistic".[40] Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung Gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works show that Euler was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture.[5] There is a famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler's second stint at the St. Petersburg academy. The French philosopher Denis Diderot was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great's invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher's arguments for atheism were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman. Diderot was later informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God: he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, "Sir, {a+b^n}{n}=x, hence God exists—reply!". Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress.bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Let's try this again Aleta, the constant of e correlates to the finely tuned 4-D space-time expansion/growth of the universe which is remarkably consistent throughout the entire universe, the constant of pi correlates to the sphere of the universe, as well as to the finely-tuned flatness of the universe, the constant of the square root of negative one correlates to how foundational quantum actions will behave in this universe. In fact these constants are absolutely necessary for all the equations describing their respective areas of influence within this universe, which when there respective equations are taken together provide a complete picture of the foundational characteristics of this universe (General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, wave theory etc.. etc..), moreover a-priori, from a atheistic/materialistic perspective, we have absolutely no reason to presuppose that there would be such coherence between these 'transcendent constants' in Euler's Identity and to physical characteristics of the universe. That there actually is a correspondence is a compass needle, as kairosfocus has said, strongly pointing us to the fact that a Mind, with a capital M, planned this universe and that this universe is not an accident. This statement of yours makes absolutely no sense Aleta: 'You can’t just look at the universe and see e, i and pi,' For e,i, and pi are in fact the language in which God has written this universe, to paraphrase Galileo.bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
OK, I've been thinking about ba's statement that
The main and primary point, as I have said for about the tenth time now Aleta, is the striking correlation of the universe’s physical structure and function to Euler’s Identity, which is indeed complementary to it’s stunning mathematical uniqueness, indeed I would even go so far as to say the Universe’s physical correlation to the equation is a more excellent proof of the equation’s validity than the proofs you have offered, but perhaps that is just my severe prejudice towards actual empirical evidence speaking, none-the-less,,, in keeping with the topic,, I find ‘the fingerprint of God’ all over the equation! Aleta such correlations are the whole point of this post!
Eulers Identity itself, e^i pi + 1 = 0, does not itself have a "striking correlation of the universe’s physical structure," but the constants in it are certainly of primary significance, which is, I think, ba's point. However, simpler ideas also have a striking correlation, such as inverse square laws k/(d^2) (gravity and electromagnetic attraction), parabolas and ellipses (paths of objects), and so on. In fact ultimately the simplest numbers of all (1, -1, and 0) are manifested in the charges carried by the proton, electron and neutron. So even though we may be most amazed at things that are most sophisticated, I think all of math deserves the same sense of wonder - if Euler's identity is the fingerprint of God to the believer, I don't think the parabola or the integers are any less so. Also, ba says, "indeed I would even go so far as to say the Universe’s physical correlation to the equation is a more excellent proof of the equation’s validity than the proofs you have offered." But, if a long succession of people had not invented, over the centuries, the mathematical symbols and notations that we subsequently used to prove Euler's identity, we wouldn't even know it existed. You can't just look at the universe and see e, i and pi, much less the meaning of e^ix. So without the mathematical proof we wouldn't even have the mathematical ideas to then apply to the world. The application is a confirmation that world is susceptible to mathematical description, but the application doesn't prove that the identity is true in the same way that the math proves it is true. That is, if someone didn't know all that stuff about e, sin x, cos x, derivatives, Taylor series, the complex plane, etc, and how it all tied together mathematically, there would be no Euler's identity for ba to marvel at. This all goes back to the points that gpuccio made. The are two facets to this topic: the math itself, which as a self contained logical system can start with a few simple rules and lead to fascinating and complex interrelationships, and the application of mathematical models to the real world. The latter is both wonderful and useful, but until people have done the work to do the former we don't even have the tools to use to study the world. The whole history of mathematics illustrates this back-and-forth interaction between the development of pure mathematics and the increasingly more sophisticated application of that math to the real world.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Well Aleta score one for your pet branch of math, alhough if you could actually show me a place where it has a physical correspondence to the universe it might awaken my interest in the subject and find relevance to the post. What has struck me as funny about your position is that you say you are a 'strong agnostic' as opposed to a atheistic materialist, or a Theist, I guess, but it would be easier for me if you were just a plain atheistic materialist for then I could just falsify materialism: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 What blows most people away, when they first encounter quantum mechanics, is the quantum foundation of our material reality blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Most people consider defying time and space to be a 'miraculous & supernatural' event. I know I certainly do! This 'miraculous & supernatural' foundation for our physical reality can easily be illuminated by the famous 'double slit' experiment. (It should be noted the double slit experiment was originally devised, in 1801, by a Christian named Thomas Young). Though I've listed this preceding video before, it is well worth revisiting it here: Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 This following site offers more of a formal refutation of materialism: Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm ,,, Yet with you Aleta the problem is more subtle than falsifying materialism, or at least just falsifying the classical form of materialism, for you yourself work with mathematics, and mathematics are in themselves transcendent. And you know very well that these transcendent equations can be formulated as you so desire so as to be put in a computer so as to have the computer do your beck and call, so you are already well aware of the dominion that logical transcendent information exercises over the material realm, thus I would say it is a pretty safe bet to say that you are not a hard-core materialist. If so there would have to be a severe disconnect in your worldview. So I guess the question I have for you Aleta, is what do you believe to be the foundational entity of reality if you are not a hard core materialist?bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Note the following, from the opening post:
Here’s a YouTube video marvelling at the ubiquity of Fibonacci, calling it the fingerprint of God. It is a well-worn metaphor, which other mathematicians might reserve for the Mandelbrot set.
Looks like Sheldon isn't too worried about that atheistic Mandelbrot set! :)Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Aleta you state: Ba, how does the Mandelbrot set differ from Euler’s Identity in respect to theism and atheism? That makes no sense. I can find a direct correspondence of Euler's Identity to the structure and function of this universe, as I amply re-illustrated in 48, I find no such striking correlation of the universe's overall physical reality to Mandelbrot sets, thus my less than enthusiastic response to it, being the practical man I am. In fact I have seen a few hard-core atheists try to invoke Mandelbrot sets to explain the generation of functional information, universes,,, etc..,,, thus maybe you can see a little clearer the reason why I showed the only practical application that I've seen of Mandelbrots are those LSD-like images,,, perhaps I am wrong on Mandelbrot insignificance,, I really don't care at this point,,, The main and primary point, as I have said for about the tenth time now Aleta, is the striking correlation of the universe's physical structure and function to Euler's Identity, which is indeed complementary to it's stunning mathematical uniqueness, indeed I would even go so far as to say the Universe's physical correlation to the equation is a more excellent proof of the equation's validity than the proofs you have offered, but perhaps that is just my severe prejudice towards actual empirical evidence speaking, none-the-less,,, in keeping with the topic,, I find 'the fingerprint of God' all over the equation! Aleta such correlations are the whole point of this post!bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
to gpuccio at 40 You summarize well the two mysteries of mathematics:
1) I find that many intrinsic aspects of mathematics are specially beautiful and in a way surprising (that could be the case for Euler identity). 2) I find really amazing that mathematics explains so well physical reality.
Although I am a mathematician (among other things), and deal with both of these aspects of math in some detail at times, I don't think I have any privileged insight into why those two things are true. In respect to 2), from a metaphysical point of view, as I have stated, I am a strong agnostic. I am aware of various common perspectives as to why our universe can be described so well with mathematics (theism, various forms of Platonism, various forms of deism, Taoism, various forms of materialism, etc.), but I don't think we can know which of those, if any, are true. So, as a strong agnostic, I live with the uncertainty of not knowing. That doesn't stop me, however, from appreciating deeply the way the world is or from loving to explore it. As to 1), we have discovered that any set of simple rules (Conway's game of Life is an example, or chess) can lead to unexpected results as the rules play out, and can lead to unexpected complexity that goes far beyond the simplicity of the fundamental rules. In fact, as you probably know, if you change just one of the beginning "rules" (such as the parallel postulate in geometry), you can get a new mathematical system, different than the first one, with different results. Then the question becomes which of the system best fits with reality, and that becomes an empirically testable question.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
ba, you write, "Here is a very well done video, showing the stringent 'mathematical proofs' of Euler's Identity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs" That is exactly the approach I use. However, it just assumes that you know that the Taylor series are true, so for that you would have to back up several steps and discuss the derivatives of sin x, cos x, and e^x. You write, "…much like you find the mandelbrot set’s philosophical implications ‘tasteful’. Tasteful since they seem to give you a loop hole for your atheistic leanings," Ba, how does the Mandelbrot set differ from Euler's Identity in respect to theism and atheism? That makes no sense. They both are mathematical facts. I love Euler's Identity, and make a big deal of it in my classes, and I likewise am fascinated by the Mandelbrot set. How does the Mandelbrot set "seem to give [me] a loop hole for [my] atheistic leanings"? It is no more atheistic or theistic than any other part of math. You write, ",,, the plain truth is that you don’t even know ‘why’ Euler’s is true though you know the proofs,,, i.e. why this particular equation and not some other equation Aleta of which there could be multitudes??? Please tell me why this equation is true from that perspective Aleta???" Well, it's true because it follows logically from more fundamental math - that's why. It's that simple. Some other equation, such as, for instance, e ^ 2i = 17 is false because there is no math that leads to it. There are multitudes of false mathematical statements - those that are true are the ones that can be proven. This seems obvious, so I don't understand your point.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply