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
For some reason the link got cut off. Reposting it: http://www.lastseminary.com/against-naturalism/Naturalism%20Reconsidered.pdfabove
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
@Kairosfocus -"Such things are like a compass-needle, pointing to the reality of numbers, which are of course utterly abstract entities. Which brings into serious question the claims of the materialists, in the heart of a domain they thought they had under their control. (In fact, such materialism, on independent grounds, is utterly self-referentially incoherent and cannot stand.)" Interestingly enough I run into this article only a few days ago. Mathematics may just well prove to be the Trojan Horse sitting in the materialistic castle. I think you and BA will enjoy reading it: http://www.lastseminary.com/against-naturalism/Naturalism Reconsidered.pdf Weir, Alan "Naturalism Reconsidered", Chapter 14 in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic Excerpt: "...[A] naturalistic attitude predominates among “analytic” philosophers. This is why philosophy of mathematics, quite apart from its intrinsic interest, is of such importance in contemporary philosophy. For, on the face of it, mathematics is an enormous Trojan Horse sitting firmly in the centre of the citadel of naturalism. Modern natural science is mathematical through and through: it is impossible to do physics, chemistry, molecular biology and so forth without a very thorough and quite extensive knowledge of modern mathematics (indeed this is true to an increasing extent of social sciences such as psychology and economics). Yet, prima facie, mathematics provides a counter-example both to methodological and to ontological naturalism."above
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
BA: The Euler identity indeed is most easily demonstrated through using power series expansions. But that has little to do with its significance. For, what it toes is to unite the five or six most significant numbers in mathematics, showing the sort of unexpected coherence that testifies to the unity of truth and reason. If these numbers and their reasons for being were merely arbitrary, they would not be expected to come together like that. That is why this equation is so astonishing. And you have rightly pointed out that these same numbers are right there in the heart of key equations in so many vital fields of physics. Such things are like a compass-needle, pointing to the reality of numbers, which are of course utterly abstract entities. Which brings into serious question the claims of the materialists, in the heart of a domain they thought they had under their control. (In fact, such materialism, on independent grounds, is utterly self-referentially incoherent and cannot stand.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Aleta, the preceding post is a 'cleaned up' version of 14bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 To solidify Dr. Sewell's observation that transcendent 'math' is found to be foundational to reality, I note just one little equation: 0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler Believe it or not, the five most important numbers in mathematics are tied together, through the complex domain in Euler's number, And that points, ever so subtly but strongly, to a world of reality beyond the immediately physical. Many people resist the implications, but there the compass needle points to a transcendent reality that governs our 3D 'physical' reality. God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician." (of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.) Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most enigmatic equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured,,, The following picture, Bible verse, and video are very interesting since, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler's identity: Picture of CMBR 3D picture of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U The flatness of the ‘entire’ universe, which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, is found on this following site; (of note this flatness of the universe is an extremely finely tuned condition for the universe that could have, in reality, been a multitude of different values than 'flat'): Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, This following video shows that the universe also has a primary characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places,, which 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to e in Euler's identity. e is the constant used in all sorts of equations of math for finding what the true rates of growth and decay are for any given problem trying to find as such: Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – 4D space/time – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ Towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the square root of negative 1 being necessary to understand the foundational quantum behavior of this universe. The square root of -1 is 'coincidentally' found in Euler's identity: Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918" I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler's identity would find such striking correlation to reality. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found. In e we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler's identity in fact 'govern' material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine. Further discussion can be found here relating Euler's identity to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fibonacci-life/#comment-364379 Here is a very well done video, showing the stringent 'mathematical proofs' of Euler's Identity: Euler's identity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs The mystery doesn't stop there, this following video shows how pi and e are found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 Euler's Identity - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003905 This following website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 To solidify Dr. Sewell's observation that transcendent 'math' is found to be foundational to reality, I note just one little equation: 0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler Believe it or not, the five most important numbers in mathematics are tied together, through the complex domain in Euler's number, And that points, ever so subtly but strongly, to a world of reality beyond the immediately physical. Many people resist the implications, but there the compass needle points to a transcendent reality that governs our 3D 'physical' reality. God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3 (of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.) Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most enigmatic equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured,,, The following picture, Bible verse, and video are very interesting since, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler's identity: Picture of CMBR 3D picture of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U The flatness of the ‘entire’ universe, which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, is found on this following site; (of note this flatness of the universe is an extremely finely tuned condition for the universe that could have, in reality, been a multitude of different values than 'flat'): Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate This following video shows that the universe also has a primary characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places,, which 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to e in Euler's identity. e is the constant used in all sorts of equations of math for finding what the true rates of growth and decay are for any given problem trying to find as such: Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – 4D space/time – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ Towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the square root of negative 1 being necessary to understand the foundational quantum behavior of this universe. The square root of -1 is 'coincidentally' found in Euler's identity: Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918" I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler's identity would find such striking correlation to reality. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found. In e we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler's identity in fact 'govern' material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine. Further discussion can be found here relating Euler's identity to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fibonacci-life/#comment-364379 Here is a very well done video, showing the stringent 'mathematical proofs' of Euler's Identity: Euler's identity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs The mystery doesn't stop there, this following video shows how pi and e are found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 Euler's Identity - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003905 This following website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
@ba http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Have we not been there before? This is absolutely not convincing: God needs 111 bits to encode 13 bits of information on pi - in a way that couldn't be found until pi is given in decimal representation? Frankly, I would be more impressed if the fraction 22/7 - or 355/113 popped up somewhere....DiEb
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Aleta, I am not trained in the details of math, but I do have a overall picture and appreciation of why Euler's is true and why it inspires such wonder,,,, I find it disingenuous of you asking me if I know 'why' Euler's is true when the fact is, though you know all the intricacies of the proofs, as outlined in this video,, Euler’s identity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs ,,, 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??? As well the primary point of this post is in the first place is,,, the ubiquity of Fibonacci,,,, and the the lead off post even states this in its writing,,, "calling it the fingerprint of God". Thus the point of this post is in fact looking beyond the mere internal consistency of mathematics, as you are trying to do, but is instead focusing on the mystery of why math should correspond to physical reality so beautifully, and even to the point of acknowledging the necessity of God to explain that correspondence! Thus in keeping with the main point of this post, I pointed out how physical reality and Euler's Identity have 'the fingerprint of God' also in their correspondence,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fibonacci-life/#comment-364305 Do you deny the correspondence? No, instead of denying the correspondence I pointed out, you play the 'mathematical authority' card, and basically say that the correspondence is meaningless for Euler's is internally consistent mathematically with other math that it is proved by,, and furthermore you rub it in that I just don't understand what is going on because I am not as smart as you are mathematically. Excuse me Aleta, my point was not to prove Euler's true mathematically, that has been done,, My point was solely to point out the stunning correspondence! Clearly You tried to evade the clear correspondence I have roughly highlighted,,, in fact you state,,, 'Euler’s identity does not “come out of nowhere.” It follows pretty straightforwardly from the Taylor series for sin x, cos x, e^x, and is best understood in terms of vectors in the complex plane.' Yet I disagreed that what you state 'produces' Euler's number but is merely a proof that verifies the validity of Euler's, which I firmly believe kairosfocus will confirm is true,,, ,,, that you would so blatantly ignore that the physical/transcendent correspondence and its spiritual implications, which is the point of this post, I believe flows directly from 'philosophical implications' that you find distasteful,,, 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, though I also hold that loop hole is surely illusory as to coherently explaining reality though you will surely disrespect my 'novice' opinion in the matter,,,. Clearly you are trying your best to avoid what is so clear to so many,, Namely that there is a powerful 'spiritual connection' between the physical reality we see around us and the transcendent nature of the equations which give us such deep understanding of that reality!bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
... and because I find it fascinating that a mathematical procedure involving the infinite iteration of complex numbers can produce such beautiful geometric patterns. For the believer in God, I would think that the Mandelbrot set would be a marvelous example of the beauty of mathematics.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
To ba: You write,
But of more to the point on what you have addressed me on earlier, I feel completely confident that you have not accomplished in the least what you set out to do when you stated this earlier in this thread: “Euler’s identity does not “come out of nowhere.” It follows pretty straightforwardly from the Taylor series for sin x, cos x, e^x, and is best understood in terms of vectors in the complex plane.” Yet, Euler’s identity is not ‘produced’ by the Taylor series, as I think you hoped to convey, but is instead as kairosfocus stated: “You are right that key trig functions are exponential in character [and can be reduced as power series too, indeed that is a part of the Euler identity’s derivation, in at least some approaches.” In fact, in this following video, trig. is used to verify the validity of Euler’s Identity, not the other way around of Euler verifying trig., as would be required for you to successfully dodge the Theistic implication of Euler’s Identity, as clearly you were trying to do (and yet even if you were successful in your endeavor, I would have just turned right around and used trig. against your position by the way since you must ultimately give a satisfactory account of origination):
Ba, you are quite confused, I think. First, kf and I are saying the exact same thing: that one way to prove the Euler identity is through the Taylor series. As is often the case with math, you can prove things in different ways (because it's all interconnected), so I'm sure there are other ways to prove it also - the Taylor series method is what I use in class because it relates to what the students have learned about derivatives and curves. Why you think what kf said somehow contradicts what I said is beyond me. And second, my discussion about all this has nothing to do with God. Whether you believe in God or not, if you want to know why Euler's identity is true, I'm going to show you mathematically. One person may believe that math is a manifestation of the mind of God and another may not, but that doesn't change one bit the math we would use to prove the identity. If someone walks in and says, "This is really neat - why is it true", saying that it is that way because God made it so isn't going to be helpful, even to a Christian. Question: do you have any idea why the Euler identity is true? Do you know anything about the Taylor series for sin x, cos x, and e^x, and more importantly, do you know how to derive them? Do you know about the mathematics of the complex plane? Don't answer with links to videos: do you know the math? You also write, "We could go through the apologetics in detail if you want for each of our positions. In fact I would like very much to see what you consider your best and strongest pieces of evidence to be taken completely apart on this website,,, as I have seen countless other arguments against God be taken apart by the able and knowledgeable readers of UD." Sorry, not interested. Been there, done that. You write, "Thus Aleta, as far as the argument which you brought to this thread is concerned, you have not made your case in the least, in fact when looked at honestly you have made my case stronger since you are in fact trained in math and have failed to give a satisfactory account for the origination for Euler’s Identity. That you would simply brush off the stunning correspondence I noted of Euler’s Identity to this physical universe here,,," You seem to be asking me to show how math in general exists and leads to such intricate results, and why it can apply so well to the world. That is a philosophical question that is not what I have been discussing. I've just been discussing Euler's identity in terms of the math itself. Also, although I know that e (Euler's number) shows up in many important places in applied mathematics, I am not sure that Euler's Identity has much practical application itself: the general formula e^ix = cos x + i sin x is very important, but the particular fact that results when x = pi may be more of a neat fact without direct practical use. (I may be wrong about this - perhaps x = pi shows up often.) And last, you write, " and to then ‘hide in the ‘interesting’ Mandelbrot sets’ does not impress me in the least with your claim that you have ‘searched these things out deeply’. In fact Aleta, it all honesty it seems very peculiar to me that you would choose the LSD-like Mandelbrot sets as more ‘interesting,,," Man, I have no idea what I am "hiding" by being interested in the Mandelbrot set. However, I finally figured out that by LSD-like you are referring to psychedelics - wow, that's weird. The Mandelbrot set is fascinating because of the math that produces it (do you know anything about that?), because of its fractal nature, and because of some of its philosophical implications. My interest in it has absolutely nothing to do with psychedelics.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Aleta, as you probably well know, I have defended the Christian position for a few years, and much contrary to the conclusion of your deep search that has led you away from the risen Christ, I find that my personal 'deep search' as well as debates with hard core atheists have only strengthened my faith in Theism in particular as well as made me acutely aware of the need for the Christ that we all have in general. We could go through the apologetics in detail if you want for each of our positions. In fact I would like very much to see what you consider your best and strongest pieces of evidence to be taken completely apart on this website,,, as I have seen countless other arguments against God be taken apart by the able and knowledgeable readers of UD. But of more to the point on what you have addressed me on earlier, I feel completely confident that you have not accomplished in the least what you set out to do when you stated this earlier in this thread: "Euler’s identity does not “come out of nowhere.” It follows pretty straightforwardly from the Taylor series for sin x, cos x, e^x, and is best understood in terms of vectors in the complex plane." Yet, Euler's identity is not 'produced' by the Taylor series, as I think you hoped to convey, but is instead as kairosfocus stated: "You are right that key trig functions are exponential in character [and can be reduced as power series too, indeed that is a part of the Euler identity's derivation, in at least some approaches." In fact, in this following video, trig. is used to verify the validity of Euler's Identity, not the other way around of Euler verifying trig., as would be required for you to successfully dodge the Theistic implication of Euler's Identity, as clearly you were trying to do (and yet even if you were successful in your endeavor, I would have just turned right around and used trig. against your position by the way since you must ultimately give a satisfactory account of origination): Euler's identity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs Thus Aleta, as far as the argument which you brought to this thread is concerned, you have not made your case in the least, in fact when looked at honestly you have made my case stronger since you are in fact trained in math and have failed to give a satisfactory account for the origination for Euler's Identity. That you would simply brush off the stunning correspondence I noted of Euler's Identity to this physical universe here,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fibonacci-life/#comment-364305 ,,, and to then 'hide in the 'interesting' Mandelbrot sets' does not impress me in the least with your claim that you have 'searched these things out deeply'. In fact Aleta, it all honesty it seems very peculiar to me that you would choose the LSD-like Mandelbrot sets as more 'interesting,,, Mandelbrot Set Zoom - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEw8xpb1aRA ,,, than choosing the sheer wonder that Euler's Identity, and its correspondence with physical reality as more 'interesting'. In fact I firmly believe that it is a very telling sign that you would probably much rather hide in your 'imagination' than to honestly consider any compelling evidence for the reality of God (of which there is plenty; Romans 1:20). Imagine - John Lennon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLwbornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
ba, you write,
Then why in blue blazes does this ‘not interest’ you in the least,,, Do you have perhaps some other plan than facing your Creator when you die???? I believe that plan has been put on hold Aleta!!! Ignoring the elephant in the living room, as you are treating the overwhelming evidence for God right now, certainly will not make the elephant go away! Perhaps someday when you are not so busy with all the other things in your life that seem to take precedence over what should be your primary concern about your relationship with God, you may feel differently than just ignoring this area of your life. I certainly pray so. Myself I find a hard time Imagining anything that would take such importance as to make God ‘uninteresting’ to you.
Well first of all, I didn't say that the subject of God doesn't interest me in the least, or that it was uninteresting. What I said was ,"I’m not interested in discussing whether God is the source of mathematics or not", which is a very different statement than what you attributed to me. But to address the topic anyway, I have been interested in religion and metaphysical philosophy since I was a teenager 45 years ago (giving my approximate age away), and have explored the topic both academically and personally. My conclusion is that even though I am a strong agnostic (we can't really know the nature of metaphysical reality, if there is one), I have absolutely no belief in a personal God in general and the dogma of Christianity in particular. Therefore, the issues of "facing my Creator when I die" and my "relationship with God" are irrelevant to me. I know you believe whole-heartedly in the Christian God, and you think you have compelling reasons, but I also know that there are other ways to look at the world that are just as compelling to their adherents. My search, which I assure you has been long and deep, has led me to different conclusions than you have reached.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Thanks, ba, about the identity vs number thing. I appreciate it that you did some research and answered the question to your own satisfaction. Clarity about vocabulary helps people communicate better, so I get a little picky about it - my students certainly think so! :)Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
BA: Indeed, the five constants in Euler's eqn are foundational in a lot of math, science and engineering. The sixth is implicit, as e^i*pi = -1 [which is why adding that result to 1 gives 0 . . . ], and that too is foundational. The operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation, with their converses, are also key. And, of course equality. [BTW what does it mean to raise something to an imaginary power? Hint: think of rotation in the complex plane, hence every thing that has oscillations in it . . . e^i*w*t, where w is angular velocity, w = 2 * pi*f, f the frequency. Using j as an operator defined as rotate 90 degrees anticlockwise, I would make students look at j[1], then do j[j[1]], a double rotation. this yielded -1, and bang a light would go off, we now have a way to see what sqrt[-1] is about. And on to AC theory . . . ] You are right that key trig functions are exponential in character [and can be reduced as power series too, indeed that is a part of the Euler identity's derivation, in at least some approaches]. Bottomline is, lo and behold these absolutely core expressions, bingo, are locked together inextricably in this one amazing and beautiful unexpected equation. If you wanted a signature of the greatest mathematician of all, the one who is Reason Himself [LOGOS], there it is. And if you doubted the reality of numbers and mathematical operations, here is something to give you pause. Sobering pause. For, the depth of unity of truth that this reveals in mathematics is almost impossible to exaggerate. If we were just arbitrarily making up things as we go, there is no good reason why they should come back together into something so profound. Talk about thinking the thoughts of the Creator after him! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Aleta: More seriously, thank you for your very precise mathemathical explanations. My personal thoughts about mathematics in general could be summed up as a double sense of wonder: 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. I am not a mathematician at all, so I would really appreciate your thoughts on those two points from the point of view of philosophy of science. Thank you in advance.gpuccio
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Aleta: More on God later! Well, that's a statement! ;)gpuccio
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Aleta, I conceded your point and corrected my notes to reflect that point for Euler's Identity being correct rather than Euler's number. The one reference is the primary one that threw me off but I was also led off track by a Missler video. As for a partial defense to the mistake I did reference in my video that I had made a few years back that the number is also referred to Euler' Identity. Now that the proper name is emphasized in all the proper places I feel comfortable, and more to the point whatever the proper name of the equation it still does not detract one iota from the overwhelming Theistic implications from Euler's number (identity) that I listed here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fibonacci-life/#comment-364379 and here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fibonacci-life/#comment-364392 Of what use is it to you to be more 'pleased' with the LSD like mandelbrot sets than the concrete enigma that Euler's identity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, places right in front of you for discerning reality?bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
ba writes, "Aleta, I appreciate your concern, but as I have found the preponderance of my references to refer to the equation as Euler’s number, and I cannot change the sites on the web." Could you show me a few? If I'm wrong, I'll change my mind. When I Google the two phrases, my point is confirmed. The one site you linked to was the one I think is wrong. Can you show me some of this preponderance of sites? More on God later! :)Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Aleta, I appreciate your concern, but as I have found the preponderance of my references to refer to the equation as Euler's number, and I cannot change the sites on the web, then the only change I can make is to my notes with this appended note... Euler's Number (properly called Euler's Identity),,, Happy/// 8) ,,, One other thing that struck a note of deep concern in me is this statement of yours,,, 'I’m not interested in discussing whether God is the source of mathematics or not,' Please tell me exactly why not Aleta,,, Aleta since I have in fact laid out some very compelling evidence that God is indeed the source of Mathematics,,, and as Richard Dawkins has himself stated,,, "The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." -- Richard Dawkins. Then why in blue blazes does this 'not interest' you in the least,,, Do you have perhaps some other plan than facing your Creator when you die???? I believe that plan has been put on hold Aleta!!! Ignoring the elephant in the living room, as you are treating the overwhelming evidence for God right now, certainly will not make the elephant go away! Perhaps someday when you are not so busy with all the other things in your life that seem to take precedence over what should be your primary concern about your relationship with God, you may feel differently than just ignoring this area of your life. I certainly pray so. Myself I find a hard time Imagining anything that would take such importance as to make God 'uninteresting' to you. Further notes: "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe," said astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986), "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and Brief Descriptions of Each: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDdnc3E4bmhkZg&hl=en How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein “… if nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” – Pope Benedict XVI The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ As well, 'pure transcendent information' is now shown to be 'conserved'. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical/material events, past, present, and future, already must exist.) This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of the foundational 'material' entity of this universe, energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known 'material' means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics. Conservation Of Transcendent Information - 2007 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995275 Scientific Evidence For God (Logos) Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995300 Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 primary reference: Let There Be Light http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
ba writes, "Thus Aleta all this foundational math I referenced is dependent on the constants of Euler’s number being true,,, (If you want to call the equation Euler’s identity instead of Euler’s number so you don’t confuse it with the ‘exponential constant”, e, I don’t care, but I will use the common name if you don’t mind),,," I'm not interested in discussing whether God is the source of mathematics or not, and I'm quite familiar with the important ways in which e, i and pi can be applied to understanding our world. But I also think proper vocabulary is important: e is Euler's number e^i pi + 1 = 0 is Euler's identity. "Euler's number" is NOT the common name for e^i pi + 1 = 0 Google the two phrases and compare the first 10 hits of so.Aleta
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Lets see Aleta where do I start??? first I am not talking solely of e, (as if you really thought I was; the equation was wrote out for pete's sake), further,,, reflecting on the 'equation'.. e^pi*i + 1 = 0 ,,, we find that,,, pi is required here: General Relativity (Einstein's Equation) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_52c9nxpz2h_b square root of negative 1 is required here: Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger's Equations) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_51ck47zff3_b and here for more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation e is required here in wave equations, in finding the distribution of prime numbers, in electrical theory, and is also found to be foundational to trigonometry at the bottom of the page here,,, which you referenced earlier as 'producing' the equation,,,: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/img0.gif ,,, which I now see more clearly was a false assertion of yours,,,, Thus Aleta all this foundational math I referenced is dependent on the constants of Euler's number being true,,, (If you want to call the equation Euler's identity instead of Euler's number so you don't confuse it with the 'exponential constant", e, I don't care, but I will use the common name if you don't mind),,, ,,,That you find the mandelbrot set more 'pleasing', or 'interesting', really is uninteresting to me for I don't see the Mandelbrot set being absolutely essential for these foundational equations we use to understand the universe,,,,. That General Relativity would require pi, and that the Shroedinger equation would require the square root of negative 1 (i), is very interesting to me since the 'unification' of General Relativity and Quantum mechanics remains elusive despite decades of work by brilliant minds trying to unify them. Moreover, That pi and i would 'unify' so easily within Euler's number as the exponent of e should be of no less wonder to you than it is to myself. Further notes: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Though mathematicians seem to be having a extremely difficult time 'unifying' QM and Relativity, this unification, into a 'theory of everything', between what is in essence the 'infinite world of Quantum Mechanics' and the 'finite world of the space-time of General Relativity' seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine further note: 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 Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Aleta I'm sorry if I didn't address all your points, but as to the overall point I think I have been abundantly clear that Mathematics does indeed come from Godbornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Another point. The relevance of the quantification. Many people thinks that continuity is possible. In fact, Science apply continuity to many phenomena -> the movement of the planets, the sound, the surface of a sphere, etc... But if we try, for example, to make a single circle, with whatever or in wichever mean, we see that it is materially impossible, that is, we can't produce with material means, finite means, a infinite reality (here the question is: is circle reality?). You can say: "There be 10^10^10^10^10, that is, 10^10000 elements in our universe! Such elements are not sufficient to construct a circle?". An the answer ever will be: No. Never. It is not a circle, it is "almost" a circle but it is a circle with 10^1000 elements which, of course, are all in a circle, but they are not a circle! A circle has... infinite elements. That is another way, in my opinion, of stablishing the Heidenberg Principle, if you understand well which are the limits of a quantizied universe. And that is also the false, but understandable dylemma of Pytagorus with SQR2: a logic reality can't be materialized. Where is the error?, in the logic reality or in the material reality?. I think that there isn't error in any of the two realities, but we need to understand better what each thing is. (Off topic: I think that Pythagorus was a usurper, that he learn many things of the egyptians "doctors" who then presented as discovered by him, and he didn't understand well many things. But this is clear off topic, and is only as a little polemic anecdote). Thats all for now. I'll see you later.Obriton
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Sorry, but in the previous post I have quoted the following from Aleta, but doesn't appears (I must have made something wrong): "We obviously live in a coherent and understandable world. I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that." All that I've writed is about this quote. My apologies.Obriton
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Aleta Hi, Aleta. I like you participate here with your opinion and I agree, in first instance, but I need to explain what I'm refering when I said "understandable" in that context to see why it's not so obvious my sentence. For understandable I mean that it's possible, in any level of detail, explain using logic any determined phenomenon (of our universe). I think it is true but it's not obvious. For example, can you or anybody explain me, that is, make understandable to me, the life phenomenon?, is obvious that is understandable? Many, many, many phenomena that we see all the days and everywhere are evident (we can see them) but not obviuosly understandable. If you see yourself walking over the sea you can't say that it is not possible, because you are walking "naturally" over the sea, but, in my sense of understandable, you must think that it is understandable even if you can't understand why it happen in that moment. Not so obvious, don't? And in the Fibonacci serie, when we can see it in our universe, I think that it can help me to see that all in the universe is understandable (life included). Sorry if I dont explain it very well, but english is'nt my native languaje. Thanks Aleta for your opinion and good day for everybody.Obriton
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
Hi ba. Let's first clear up an inaccuracy. An article you quote writes, "The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e^?i. This number is equal to -1." This is incorrect. e itself is Euler's number, not e^?i. I am a bit puzzled by the philosophy you are espousing. You write, "Clearly since Euler’s number is overarching and foundational in mathematics, as well as in the physical reality of the geometric structure of this universe, then all other ‘lesser’ mathematics will be derived off of, or be somehow dependent on, Euler’s number." But Euler's number is not the endpoint of math, anymore than 1 is, or ?, or a straight line, or any number of other concepts. In some sense, math (and not its manifestation in reality) is all of a piece. We, as humans, both historically and conceptually, have build our understanding of math, and the notational systems we use to express that understanding, from the bottom up, so to speak, starting with the simplest ideas. But all of mathematics is implicitly present in the system: for instance, Mandelbrot's set (which is far more amazing than Euler's identity, to my mind) existed, in some sense, as a mathematical structure irrespective of whether anyone had "discovered" it, and I am sure that there are mathematical structures we have not figured out yet that are yet to be discovered. So I don't think one can say that we could start with e and derive the foundations backwards, and I don't think it's correct to say that those foundations are dependent on e. The fact that an even number squared is even, for instance ( a basic fact of number theory) is not dependent on the existence and nature of e, even though the two are entangled together by the vast web of relationships that tie all of mathematics together. I will grant that the language that a certain chain of explanations "produces" the number e, or the larger fact that e^i pi = -1, is misleading. The chain of explanations is just that - explanations that satisfy us because we can follow the reasoning to see how e is related back to earlier concepts in a logical way. But, as I said earlier, the math itself is a holistic whole - however, but we as human beings have to approach it as building from the more basic to the less basic. You also write, I’m trying to make it clear to you that God mind produces it not mathematics,,, You are looking at the equation from one direction from one direction I’m looking at it from the other! ... I commend you on your understanding of math, but please give credit where credit is due, the foundational equation of Euler’s number and the correspondence it has to physical reality is ‘produced’ by God not by ‘derived’ mathematics." I don't believe in God, as you do, so this is not very relevant to me. Also, I didn't say that the "correspondence it has to physical reality is‘produced’ by … ‘derived’ mathematics." The correspondence that math has to the physical world is a separate issue from the issue of how, within the logical world of math, e is related to other parts of math. I've been primarily discussing the former, not the latter, although I did point out that I do teach, strongly, about applying math to the real world in my classes.Aleta
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Aleta, "I believe that my wonder about both mathematics in general and Euler’s identity in particular, is enhanced, not diminished, by understanding the mathematics that produces it." Now let's take this statement, you say,,, "understanding mathematics that produces it" (Euler's number) I'm trying to make it clear to you that God mind produces it not mathematics,,, You are looking at the equation from one direction from one direction I'm looking at it from the other! Clearly since Euler's number is overarching and foundational in mathematics, as well as in the physical reality of the geometric structure of this universe, then all other 'lesser' mathematics will be derived off of, or be somehow dependent on, Euler's number, and though you may build your way from that 'derived, lesser' mathematics to that equation which supplies the stable geometric structure of this universe, Namely build your way from underlying mathematical geometric principles to the main 'blueprint' principle of Euler's number, that in no way gives you any right to say that the 'lesser' mathematics has 'produced' Euler's number, for without that stable geometric structure, within this vibrantly dynamic space-time in the first place, then that 'lesser' mathematics would not even be able to be consistently true in the first place. i.e. Your 'lesser' Math is dependent on the stability of Euler's being true in the first place... I commend you on your understanding of math, but please give credit where credit is due, the foundational equation of Euler's number and the correspondence it has to physical reality is 'produced' by God not by 'derived' mathematics.bornagain77
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
To ba77: the equation has a transcendent origin from God! Really ? And the area of a rectangle = LxB. Does this also come from god ? I dont remember this from school.Graham
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Hi bornagain, You write, "Actually I never implied that the equation ‘came out of nowhere’" Looking back at 14, I now see, I think, that it was kairosfocus that said "And, it is so utterly astonishing, a surprise that comes out of nowhere, almost." Since you didn't actually show quotes, however, I read it as if those were your words - reading your post, it's a bit hard to follow what are you words and what are quotes and excerpts from others. My apologies for mis-attributing that sentence to you. You write, "You see my wonder stems from the physical correspondence. And though the equation may flow some other method of math, I firmly believe you have cheated yourself of the wonder inherent in the correspondence between the physicality and the ‘transcendent equation, by fooling yourself into thinking ‘you have it all figured out’ when clearly you have missed the forest for the trees." I think you are jumping to some unwarranted assumptions here. I believe that my wonder about both mathematics in general and Euler's identity in particular, is enhanced, not diminished, by understanding the mathematics that produces it. "Figuring out" why it is true in terms of more basic mathematical ideas makes my understanding and appreciation more richer and deeper, I think, than the person who just contemplates the identity as a fact divorced from understanding. Furthermore, when I teach math, I emphasize the ways in which math can be applied to the real world - I consider that a key part of my teaching. I explicitly teach the theory of mathematical modeling, and the practice of applying and testing those models in the real world. I teach the ways, for instance, that imaginary numbers can be applied to the real world, and explain how misleading it is to consider them any more or less "imaginary" than any other kind of number. So you are wrong to think (based on what evidence I do not know) that somehow I've cheated myself out of something, or that I don't understand the forest just because I also understand the individual trees. If we followed your reasoning, it seems, I wouldn't bother to teach my students why the math they learn is true - I'd just ask them to bask in its wonder. As a teacher, I think that would very much be the wrong thing to do.Aleta
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Aleta you state: To bornagain at 14: Euler’s identity does not “come out of nowhere.” Actually I never implied that the equation 'came out of nowhere'. I thought I had made the corresponding physical evidence to the foundational, and the overarching, characteristics of the universe more than clear enough to illustrate that the equation has a transcendent origin from God! Sure I used broad measures to roughly fit the equation to physical characteristics, yet, despite my somewhat brute manner in my coarse fit of physical evidence to the equation, the fit has an utter serendipity that I consider a 'beautiful thought' pointing very strongly to truth. You see my wonder stems from the physical correspondence. And though the equation may flow some other method of math, I firmly believe you have cheated yourself of the wonder inherent in the correspondence between the physicality and the 'transcendent equation, by fooling yourself into thinking 'you have it all figured out' when clearly you have missed the forest for the trees,,, Furthermore, That the default hypothesis of materialism is that such correspondence is purely, and ultimately, the result of 'chance' only firmly solidifies my conviction that such 'coincidence' is the handiwork of God. Of note: "The Word" in John 1-1 is called "Logos" in Greek and is the root word from which we get the word "Logic".bornagain77
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Oops - above ?2 is really "square root of 2". My character didn't render the same online as it did in my word processor.Aleta
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply