Golden ratio in guitar solos?

So... Not sure if any musicians here already pointed this out, but... As a musician, I know that an easy way to pull a guitar solo out of nowhere (or to play something that sounds good even if you are lost) is to play along a pentatonic scale. Whereas a normal major scale would have 7 unique tones, the pentatonic only includes 5 of those tones, which are broken into two sets: One set of two, and one set of three. I'm not a mathematician, but according to the simple calculations for the Golden Ratio... it would seem that this extremely common technique for guitar solos is within range of the golden ratio. The set of 3 divided by the set of 2 is 1.5, while the sum (5) divided by the larger set (3) is 1.66666... pretty spot on, right? Guess this explains why pentatonic scales are so useful for soloists and general improv. bloodymurderlive

fifthmonarchyman: a collection of organisms necessarily has more information than the sum of the organisms taken individuality. 1. The sum would depend on what is included within the fuzzy edges of the group. 2. Algorithms can determine the sum of group. fifthmonarchyman: What accounts for the sensation? Remember It can’t be an algorithm like Darwinian evolution. Why not? fifthmonarchyman: Godel proved conclusively that all formal systems including TOG are necessarily incomplete. That is incorrect. Formal first order geometry is complete. Zachriel

'Fibonacci quasiparticle' could form basis of future quantum computers - Dec. 15, 2014 Excerpt: "The Fibonacci anyon is a non-Abelian anyon whose quantum dimension is the golden ratio (1.617...), and is the simplest anyon capable of performing universal quantum computation," Vaezi explained. "Using the fusion rule of Fibonacci anyons, it can be shown that the degeneracy of the ground state in the presence of n well-separated Fibonacci anyons on a sphere is the nth number in the Fibonacci sequence." http://phys.org/news/2014-12-fibonacci-quasiparticle-basis-future-quantum.html notes: In physics, an anyon is a type of quasiparticle that occurs only in two-dimensional systems, with properties much less restricted than fermions and bosons;,,, ,,,the Nth Number is some arbitrary positive integer in a sequence that can be whatever anyone chooses it to be. bornagain77

ZAc said, “Species” generally refers to the collection of organisms themselves. I say, a collection of organisms necessarily has more information than the sum of the organisms taken individuality. The extra something is the form. check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem ZAc says, Forms are an abstraction, a type of sensation of the mind. I say, What accounts for the sensation? Remember It can't be an algorithm like Darwinian evolution. Zac says That sort of navel-gazing applies to the Theory of Gravity, or any scientific theory, which are all abstractions. I say, Well of course. Now maybe you are getting it. Have you even heard of Godel and incompleteness? Godel proved conclusively that all formal systems including TOG are necessarily incomplete. They must rely on something beyond themselves. Something that must be assumed but can't ever be proved. Let that sink in while you stew. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Thus confirming the claim that evolution being an algorithm can’t account for the origin of forms (like species). "Species" generally refers to the collection of organisms themselves. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species The platonic form is called the type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(biology) In any case, you are incorrect. Computers can make the same generalizations as humans with regards to grouping organisms into species, characteristics of which tend to be statistically lumpy. fifthmonarchyman: 2)The forms are an illusion in our brains. Forms are an abstraction, a type of sensation of the mind. fifthmonarchyman: Either way there is a something in biology (I would argue the most important thing) is not the result of Darwinian evolution. That sort of navel-gazing applies to the Theory of Gravity, or any scientific theory, which are all abstractions. Zachriel

ZAc says, When we consider the objects we call “mice” and group them into a species, we might create a platonic form called “mouse”. However, the objects have no obligation to conform to your platonic form, and in the case of biological organisms, they often don’t. I say, Exactly, Thus confirming the claim that evolution being an algorithm can't account for the origin of forms (like species). Finally You are now left with an obvious dilemma. either. 1) The forms actually exist independent of us yet we can access them with our minds. or 2)The forms are an illusion in our brains. Either way there is a something in biology (I would argue the most important thing) is not the result of Darwinian evolution. Unless you have a point that in some way gets you out of this spot I will leave you there to stew and let you have the last word on this one. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: You don’t observe the ocean you observe water and infer that is part of an ocean. Never been to the ocean, eh? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/20100726_Kalamitsi_Beach_Ionian_Sea_Lefkada_island_Greece.jpg Anyway, you don't observe "water", but reflection of light on something we infer has certain properties we call "water". If we use instruments, we only see the light from the instruments, and have to infer that it provides information about the properties of the thing we infer as "water". Generally, in English, we very well might say we observe the ocean, or more specifically, we observe properties of the ocean, though at some level, we are merely inferring the existence of a distinct entity called "ocean". When we consider a species, we obviously don't see a species, but individual organisms. When we consider an organism, it's actually not a single whole, but a collection of cells. Even its molecules are replaced over time. But we observe something that seems to have consistency in space and time. We often say we observe something, even though we are actually inferring it as a separate object with distinct properties. Nevertheless, we say we have an "ocean observing system" and people know that we mean a system to observe properties of the entity known as the "ocean". http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/ When we consider the objects we call "mice" and group them into a species, we might create a platonic form called "mouse". However, the objects have no obligation to conform to your platonic form, and in the case of biological organisms, they often don't. Leaving semantic quibbles aside, species tend to be sets with fuzzy edges, just like an ocean is a body of water with fuzzy edges. Zachriel

zac says, That’s like saying the sea or atmosphere isn’t an observable because the edges are fuzzy. I say, You don't observe the ocean you observe water and infer that is part of an ocean. You don't observe the atmosphere you observe gasses and infer they constitute part of an atmosphere. Use your head man. This is what the forms are all about. Forms combine the discrete particular many into the unified one. The form "circle" combines discrete particular individual Geometric Shapes into a unified exclusive set. The form "mouse" combines discrete particular individual organisms into a unified exclusive species. The form "Shakespearean Sonnet" combines discrete particular individual strings of text into a unified grouping of literature. This is pretty elementary stuff check it out http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/1ovrmany.htm peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms Yes, we understand what is meant by a platonic form. However, you haven't shown why algorithmic processes can't produce forms. A simple example is "two". fifthmonarchyman: Irreducible complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....ion_theory Yes, we also understand what is meant by Integrated Information, though you used the term Irreducible Complexity which is nowhere found in the article you cited. fifthmonarchyman: A concept is an abstraction or generalization from experience or the result of a transformation of existing concepts. Computers are capable of abstraction and generalization from experience. They can also transform existing concepts. fifthmonarchyman: But you have repeatedly demonstrated that “actually observed” (meaning phyiscal) species don’t really exist. Where did you get that idea? Species are observed. fifthmonarchyman: You said this is a core claim of Darwinism. No. That the sets have fuzzy edges (grades of reproductive isolation) is a core claim, however, that doesn't mean we don't observe species. Just because something doesn't fit into your box doesn't mean it isn't observed. That's like saying the sea or atmosphere isn't an observable because the edges are fuzzy. No wonder you are so confused about platonic forms. Zachriel

ZAc said, “IC concepts” and “Forms” require operational definitions. I say Once more around the merry-go-round. I think this is the fifth time. Forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms quote: The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness.....Form answers the question, "What is that?" end quote: Irreducible complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory quote: In a system composed of connected "mechanisms" (nodes containing information and causally influencing other nodes), the information among them is said to be integrated if and to the extent that ..............there is a greater amount of information in the repertoire of a whole system regarding its previous state than there is in the sum of the all the mechanisms' considered individually............ end quote: concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept quote: A concept is an abstraction or generalization from experience or the result of a transformation of existing concepts. The concept reifies all of its actual or potential instances whether these are things in the real world or other ideas. end quote: you say, Perhaps not, who knows; but it can account for actually observed species. I say, But you have repeatedly demonstrated that "actually observed" (meaning phyiscal) species don't really exist. You said this is a core claim of Darwinism. You drove this point home by adamantly claiming that the sets that define "species" have no real boundaries. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Premise 1) algorithmic processes (like evolution) can’t produce the forms Premise 2) IC concepts (Like species)are forms "Forms", "IC concepts" and "Forms" require operational definitions. fifthmonarchyman: Evolution being algorithmic can’t account for IC concepts like species. Perhaps not, who knows; but it can account for actually observed species. fifthmonarchyman: The only way disprove the conclusion is to disprove one of the premises. One doesn't disprove incoherent claims. Zachriel

ZAc said, Algorithms are certainly limited, but you haven’t shown any relevance. I say, It's possible even likely that I've done a poor job of explaining. But the math is sound and the relevance is obvious it follows necessarily from this syllogism Premise 1) algorithmic processes (like evolution) can't produce the forms Premise 2) IC concepts (Like species)are forms conclusion........ Evolution being algorithmic can't account for IC concepts like species. The only way disprove the conclusion is to disprove one of the premises. You've certainly tried but I can't see how you have done this. Not even close. Now you can cling to the hope that a phyiscal algorithm will be discovered that can somehow produce an immaterial concept or you can assume with out evidence that immaterial concepts are merely illusions created by a process that is unable to approximate them. Either way it looks like you are screwed. Both approaches have blatant contradictions at their very core. peace conclusion fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: I would argue that that is because that the Mathematical limitations of algorithms has yet to filter down to your average biologist. Most biologists work with mathematics all the time. Algorithms are certainly limited, but you haven't shown any relevance. fifthmonarchyman: I do, I know the form. Then tell us, is pi normal? fifthmonarchyman: Is there a point there? Sure, it means that instead of pi being an infinite algorithmic expansion, it's simply the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. fifthmonarchyman: This discussion is not about computers can do it’s about what they can’t. There's lots of things computers can't do, but you haven't mentioned any. fifthmonarchyman: Computers can’t 1) approximate the forms sufficiently enough to fool the observer 2) “know” anything at all 1) Your attempt to operationalize this concept has failed, and you have ended up reverting to 2) some unoperationalized concept of "to know". Zachriel

zac says, The question is the form of the mouse. The vast majority of biologists say the form is the result of evolutionary processes. I say, I would argue that that is because that the Mathematical limitations of algorithms has yet to filter down to your average biologist. I don't think that Godel and Penrose are required reading in most biology departments. This is where something like my game can come in handy. You say, Your claim was that you “knew” the actual infinite sequence. I say, I do, I know the form. The form will yield the sequence as precisely as I want it too given the necessary time and resources. You say, Furthermore, computers can do geometry without the arithmetic too. I say, Is there a point there? computers can do a lot of things many much better than me. This discussion is not about computers can do it's about what they can't. Computers can't 1) approximate the forms sufficiently enough to fool the observer 2) "know" anything at all peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: I don’t need to know level 30 on the y-axes to know level 4. Your claim was that you "knew" the actual infinite sequence. Furthermore, computers can do geometry without the arithmetic too. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman: The study of the evolutionary history of mice is not the same as the study of mice. The question is the form of the mouse. The vast majority of biologists say the form is the result of evolutionary processes. fifthmonarchyman: Many systematists continue to use phenetic methods, particularly in addressing species-level questions. There are a few dozen species of mouse which form a phylogeny. http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ummz/mammals/research/tucker/images/fig1-tree.gif fifthmonarchyman: Biologists doing actual Field work are the kind of experts I’d consult when learning about what it takes to be a mouse Let's hope you don't mean the Orkin man. You never did say what a "mouse" was. Lundigran, Jansa, & Tucker, Phylogenetic Relationships in the Genus Mus, Based on Paternally, Maternally, and Biparentally Inherited Characters, Systems Biology 2002. Chevret et al., Molecular phylogeny of the genus Mus (Rodentia: Murinae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear data, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2005. Zachriel

You say, You said to consult experts on mice, not philosophy. I say, The study of the evolutionary history of mice is not the same as the study of mice. Not even close You say, Jones doesn’t represent anywhere near the consensus position of biologist even with regard to cichlids. I say, Lets see do I take the word of a anonymous commenter on an obscure internet blog or a Ph.D. in biology? Check this out. for here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenetics quote: Many systematists continue to use phenetic methods, particularly in addressing species-level questions. While a major goal of taxonomy remains describing the 'tree of life' - the evolutionary path connecting all species - in fieldwork one needs to be able to separate one taxon from another. Classifying diverse groups of closely related organisms that differ by very subtle differences is difficult using a cladistic approach. Phenetics provides numerical tools for examining overall patterns of variation, allowing researchers to identify discrete groups that can be classified as species. end quote: Biologists doing actual Field work are the kind of experts I'd consult when learning about what it takes to be a mouse peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: How many of these experts are Platonists do they assume that the forms don’t exist fron the get go? You said to consult experts on mice, not philosophy. fifthmonarchyman: I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The question concerned "mouse". In any case, Jones doesn't represent anywhere near the consensus position of biologist even with regard to cichlids. As for Jones and cichlids, he claims "evolutionary lines of descent were nowhere to be found", yet there are many papers on cichlid phylogeny. Zachriel

Zac says, Because the experts you said to consult nearly universally say the form of the mouse isn’t a platonic form. I say, How many of these experts are Platonists do they assume that the forms don't exist fron the get go? quoting BA77's article: quote: “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biolog..." end quote: looks like the experts might be on my side on this one, Although they might not word it the way I do or share my skepticism on the power of algorithms to approximate the forms Peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: What in the world does that have to do with the form of Mouse Because the experts you said to consult nearly universally say the form of the mouse isn't a platonic form, but the result of a long process of divergence and adaptation. A mouse is a derived rodent which is a derived mammal which is a derived amniote, and so on. Zachriel

Zac says, When we consult the experts, the vast majority agree that the mouse shares a common ancestor with other rodents. I say, I assume that the that the mouse shares a common ancestor with other rodents. What in the world does that have to do with the form of Mouse or the price of tea in China? Do you somehow think that Plato was YEC? you said, You don’t know how pi as a geometric ratio translates into digital notation, which is a very subtle relationship which is still not completely understood. It’s not even known if pi is a normal number. I say, I don't need to know level 30 on the y-axes to know level 4. Peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: In fact I don’t even much care about “any arbitrary digit of pi” I “know” the actual infinite sequence. Um, no, you don't. You don't know how pi as a geometric ratio translates into digital notation, which is a very subtle relationship which is still not completely understood. It's not even known if pi is a normal number. fifthmonarchyman: I just simply type in (4/1)-(4/3)+(4/5)-(4/7)+(4/9)……. Which is an algorithm you read about somewhere. fifthmonarchyman: But in general I don’t need to because I know the form. Computers can do geometry without the arithmetic too. fifthmonarchyman: Algorithms can’t ever know those sorts of things because being finite and preceding from the bottom up they can’t grasp the infinite top down reality that is pi. Pi isn't infinite. Pi is a finite number between three and four. Pi's digital expansion in integer bases is infinite. fifthmonarchyman: Mouse it the top down lossles data compression (form)of everything it takes to be a mouse. Which is? ... fifthmonarchyman: As to the specifics of the form of Mouse I’m no expert but there are plenty out there. When we consult the experts, the vast majority agree that the mouse shares a common ancestor with other rodents. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/rodentia/rodentia.html Zachriel

Zac asks The algorithm can provide you any arbitrary digit of pi that you want. What can you do that is different? I say, That is a good question for once I Know the form/key I know that Pi is much more than 3.1415....... Its actually the ratio of ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This knowledge allows me to easily best any approximation of Pi that an algorithm can ever produce. In fact I don't even much care about "any arbitrary digit of pi" I "know" the actual infinite sequence. All of it with out any approximation. That is what lossless data compression is all about. I might not be able at present to spout out the 1097th digit of Pi but I don't need to do that. I can get any old calculator to do that any time I want to. I just simply type in (4/1)-(4/3)+(4/5)-(4/7)+(4/9)....... And I'm off the the races But in general I don't need to because I know the form. I know what it means and I can discover when it will come in handy. Or when a particular approximation deviates from the Ideal Algorithms can't ever know those sorts of things because being finite and preceding from the bottom up they can't grasp the infinite top down reality that is pi. That why my using the dictionary definition of computable is appropriate in this discussion. you say Please delineate “mouse” as a platonic form. I say, Just like Pi is the top down lossless data compression (form)of 3.1415....... Mouse it the top down lossles data compression (form)of everything it takes to be a mouse. Just as a calculator could begin plugging away at Pi one digit at a time a reductionist might begin to plug away at Mouse one gene or one protein or one anatomical feature at a time. Just as the calculator will never make it to the last digit of Pi the reductionist will never make it the complete essence of "mouse" On the other hand I don't need to know every last particle or gene or feature. If I know the form I can easily pick out the gene or feature or particle that does not fit. Knowing form is what enables a doctor to know that a mass is cancer and not part of the patient even if he has never seen this particular mass before. It's what enables paleontologists and ecologists to say this organism belongs to the set and that one does not even if he has never seen the organism before. As to the specifics of the form of Mouse I'm no expert but there are plenty out there. Folks that study the mouse and become familiar with the various "patterns" that describe it. hope that helps peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: A form is just the non-materiel essence of something. Gee whiz. We're asking about the platonic form called "mouse". fifthmonarchyman: So the form of a mouse is simply what a mouse is. pretty simple concept. That's what we're asking. Please delineate "mouse" as a platonic form. fifthmonarchyman: Ive addressed that objection about 15 times already. Yes, by redefining computable to match your preconceived conclusion. fifthmonarchyman: No I am observing to see if an algorithm can do something. The algorithm can provide you any arbitrary digit of pi that you want. What can you do that is different? fifthmonarchyman: So no observation at all then just some wild speculation. Yes, that seems to be your position, but you had indicated you knew the answer, and more importantly, you could demonstrate it. You haven't even grasped the very basics of the problem. Zachriel

Me_thinks says, Everything that Trustev for Publishers checks for can be spoofed or changed. I say, In a nutshell, My hypothesis is that no matter how a troll attempts to change his behavior he will never be able to convince an observer he is an approved commenter. With the following caveats. 1)The troll is an algorithm 2)The observer has as many resources and as much time as he wants to study the data set 3)The the troll does not possess the key that the observer is using to make it's determination. This seems to me to be a perfectly testable scientific hypothesis. Surely you agree peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman @ 242

http://www.newsweek.com/one-tr.....ing-290623 Apparently I’m not only on the cutting edge but this approach of looking for the “Key/Form” of a data set is poised to offer huge practical benefits to places like UD

Everything that Trustev for Publishers checks for can be spoofed or changed. Me_Think

All, Here is example of the principles I'm exploring with with game in action to permanently prevent internet trolls. http://www.newsweek.com/one-trolls-permanent-solution-trolling-290623 Apparently I'm not only on the cutting edge but this approach of looking for the "Key/Form" of a data set is poised to offer huge practical benefits to places like UD. ;-) peace fifthmonarchyman

zac says, You claimed it was a platonic form. You tell us what you think it means. I say Are you unfamiliar with the forms? Think of a "lossless data compression" or a "specification". A form is just the non-materiel essence of something. from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms quote: The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, "What is that? end quote: So the form of a mouse is simply what a mouse is. pretty simple concept. you say, Yes, pi is irrational, but it is computable. I say, Don't you ever get tired of this merry go round? Ive addressed that objection about 15 times already. You say, Your answer was by looking at an algorithm for the answer. I say, No I am observing to see if an algorithm can do something. I'm judging the power of an algorithm not using an algorithm to judge something else. The algorithm is object not subject you say, Not sure it has an easy answer. Consciousness may be .....then it could be I say So no observation at all then just some wild speculation. duly noted peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Just because I’m not an expert right now do you think that means I couldn’t learn what it takes to be a mouse. You claimed it was a platonic form. You tell us what you think it means. fifthmonarchyman: check it out Yes, pi is irrational, but it is computable. From your link:

The computable numbers include many of the specific real numbers which appear in practice, including all real algebraic numbers, as well as e, pi, and many other transcendental numbers.

fifthmonarchyman: I’m not using an algorithm I’m using an observer. You said "It means the observer will always be able to tell the difference between what an algorithm produces and the form/spesfication 'Pi'". Your answer was by looking at an algorithm for the answer. fifthmonarchyman: Are you assuming that observers are algorithmic??? No, but that's what you're trying to show. fifthmonarchyman: What possible observation would ever lead you to believe something like that?? Not sure it has an easy answer. Consciousness may be non-algorithmic. Of course, if there are analog components, then it could be non-algorithmic and still be very much a natural mechanism. Zachriel

Zac said, We wanted to explore what that meant, what characteristics constitute “mouse” by looking at examples. I say, OK If you want to shoot me some examples knock your self out. Like said I'm no expert in mice so I'm not sure what it will prove. It's highly possible even likely that I will get it wrong more than not. Just because I'm not an expert right now do you think that means I couldn't learn what it takes to be a mouse. With feedback of course? You say, It doesn’t require magic. You could show such an algorithm is impossible, such as through a mathematical proof. I say, check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational You say, If you’re using an algorithm to test the algorithm, then you haven’t demonstrated anything non-algorithmic. I say, I'm not using an algorithm I'm using an observer. Are you assuming that observers are algorithmic??? Talk about materialistic presuppositions. What possible observation would ever lead you to believe something like that?? Peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: I don’t recall ever refusing to look at anything. Refresh my memory. You said "mouse" was a platonic form. We wanted to explore what that meant, what characteristics constitute "mouse" by looking at examples. fifthmonarchyman: So unless I can prove that it’s impossible for an algorithm to approximate the forms closely enough to fool an observer then it is always possible that some unknown magical algorithm will come to the rescue of the Materialist. It doesn't require magic. You could show such an algorithm is impossible, such as through a mathematical proof. Or you could show that you have exhaustively examined every possible algorithm, or at least a representative sample of every possible algorithm. However, it isn't sufficient to show that you have made wings and you couldn't fly to show that flight is impossible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN-ZktmjIfE fifthmonarchyman: It means the observer will always be able to tell the difference between what an algorithm produces and the form/spesfication “Pi” If you're using an algorithm to test the algorithm, then you haven't demonstrated anything non-algorithmic. Zachriel

ZAC said. If you refuse to look at the observations, then scientific discussions are fruitless. I say, What??? Wait a minute. I don't recall ever refusing to look at anything. Refresh my memory. What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? I'm willing to look at anything you want to share just be sure you don't assume materialism from the get go. you say, Scientific discussions are grounded in observation. I say, I completely agree, It's your side that is discounting observations by calling them an "illusion of the mind" that evolution tricks us into believing. You say, Unless you can show that you have explored the entire space of algorithms, the results entail limitations of human technical capability. I say, So unless I can prove that it's impossible for an algorithm to approximate the forms closely enough to fool an observer then it is always possible that some unknown magical algorithm will come to the rescue of the Materialist. The problem with your mysterious unknown super algorithm hope is that a finite algorithm can never fool the observer when it comes to infinite forms You have already established that fact way back in comment 195. quote: If you mean a decimal expansion is always an approximation, that doesn’t require an algorithm, but can be shown by deduction. End quote: I guess we would call that Checkmate peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: I completely agree. If you refuse to look at the observations, then scientific discussions are fruitless. fifthmonarchyman: I’m quite sure I will never convince you of the vacuity of your worldview and unless you can make some sort of argument that the forms do not exist that does not assume materialism then. Scientific discussions are grounded in observation. fifthmonarchyman: Build an algorithm that can approximate a form well enough to fool the observer. We already discussed the problems with your game. Unless you can show that you have explored the entire space of algorithms, the results entail limitations of human technical capability. Zachriel

Me_Thinks So you ask yourself- Does Golden Ratio does exist in human mind or in Nature ? I say, Of course you know those are not the only options peace fifthmonarchyman

It seems you are agreeing with me that the Golden ratio exists independent of the human mind correct

I am definitely agreeing that Nature shows pattern because structures have to grow on restricted base. For Eg If leaves have to grow on stem, they have to grow on branches and branches have to grow on a cylinder without crowding,so they are restricted to points Cos[2 Pi * n * GoldenRatio , Sin(2 Pi n GoldenRatio). Now the 'Golden Ratio' here is not always accurate to many decimal places and not every leaf growth will follow Golden ratio exactly. Humans are great at discern patterns in anything and we are the ones who impart special 'Golden Ratios' and 'Fibonacci Series' to patterns that we discern. So you ask yourself- Does Golden Ratio exist in human mind or in Nature ? Me_Think

Zac says, it’s hard to imagine such a discussion being productive. I say. I completely agree. I'm quite sure I will never convince you of the vacuity of your worldview and unless you can make some sort of argument that the forms do not exist that does not assume materialism then. We will have to agree to disagree about metaphysics How about you try some science for a change. Build an algorithm that can approximate a form well enough to fool the observer. Prove me wrong. If not The challenge stands and the hypothesis has not been falsified peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: So right now I would probably call any thing in the superfaimily Muroidea a mouse. Heh. The muroidea kind. fifthmonarchyman: Do you somehow think that the taxonomy of Mus is somehow dependent on my own personal subjective knowledge? That's apparently your view. Without discussing particulars, it's hard to imagine such a discussion being productive. Zachriel

Zac says, Well … then … what is your answer? I say, I'm definitely not an expert in mice. I'm probably at a level 3 on the y-access So right now I would probably call any thing in the superfaimily Muroidea a mouse. If I spent some time studying these animals I would most assuredly move up the axes and as I did the set of creatures I would be willing to ascribe to the form would narrow forming a perfect ONH. This is the process made famous by Linnaeus. The form exists independently and humans merely discover it one step and one centric circle at a time. Do you somehow think that the taxonomy of Mus is somehow dependent on my own personal subjective knowledge? peace fifthmonarchyman

Me_Thinks says, any structure,when subdivided into small parts can be expressed as Golden ratio I say, It seems you are agreeing with me that the Golden ratio exists independent of the human mind correct? You might want to help me convince Zachriel and Jerad who seem believe it is merely a human defined concept. They are much more likely to listen to someone like you than to a big bad fundi like me Peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman @ 227 Golden ratio has Sqrt of 5: 1/2(Sqrt(5)+1) Square root(5)/2 is the diagonal of a 1/2 square, so any structure,when subdivided into small parts can be expressed as Golden ratio. If your mind can express anything in terms of Sqrt(5), then you can get the Golden ratio. In fact even a zigzag line can be expressed as Golden Ratio. Just take fraction of integer * Golden Ratio Eg : [3 * 1/2(1 + Sqrt(5)= 4.854102. Take the fraction, you get 0.854102]

(Plot for 3,4,5 .... 34 fractions 0.854102, 0.472136, 0.0901699, 0.708204, 0.326238,0.944272,0.562306, 0.18034, 0.798374, 0.416408, 0.0344419, 0.652476, 0.27051,0.888544,0.506578,0.124612,0.742646, 0.36068, 0.978714, 0.596748,0.214782, 0.832816, 0.45085,0.0688837, 0.686918, 0.304952,0.922986, 0.54102, 0.159054, 0.777088, 0.395122, 0.0131556)

You get a Golden Ratio zigzag line ! Me_Think

fifthmonarchyman: As I said it depends on my level of knowledge. Well … then … what is your answer? Do only species in the genus Mus qualify as the platonic form “mouse”, or do other Muridae make the grade? What about Muroidea? Rodentia? fifthmonarchyman: for some reason given enough time and resources we finite human’s can tell exactly where things in the real (read physical) world deviate from the Ideal form. How could that be???? Humans define the so-called ideal form. fifthmonarchyman: How is it even logically possible that a brain created by a process that can’t ever produce perfection can readily recognize where physical things deviate from a perfect ideal? Through abstraction. Computers can work with ideal forms as well. For instance, two is an ideal. Zachriel

Jerad, An alien civilisation would have Pi and maybe the Fibonacci numbers ..... And there is nothing to suggest that these concepts exist in some Platonic over-world. I say, I hope you understand that when I speak of the Fibonacci sequence I mean the entire infinite sequence not just the first few numbers in the string. moving on So In your opinion Pi and the Fibonacci sequence exist not only in the human mind but also in any intelligent mind. And if I understand you correctly you also believe that the these numbers are merely an illusion in your brain created by a process that is not even able to produce them precisely (meaning at least to the last digit) in the first place. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position. Peace ps I'm excited to see if you "get" the game peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #225

Do you really think it’s possible that the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence and Pi don’t really exist but are just an illusion created by a mechanism that can’t even produce them precisely?

I'm saying what if Platonic forms don't really exist? The golden ration IS a man-made concept, it's not really found that often in nature, certainly not exactly. The Fibonacci numbers DO exist in nature and probably exist because of structural packing schemes. A human discovered a way to generate them easily. Pi is a measure of a ratio of a mathematical construct. In nature there are few perfect circles or spheres. An alien civilisation would have Pi and maybe the Fibonacci numbers but might not 'have' the golden ratio. In my opinion. And there is nothing to suggest that these concepts exist in some Platonic over-world. I am unable to run the game at http://arora.ccs.neu.edu/v4/tool/login.jsp but I may tweak my java security settings. I'm having a think. I can 'run' the spreadsheet. Jerad

Jerad says, what if that really is the mechanism. Then you have been fooled into to thinking that Platonic forms exist when they don’t. I say, Think about this for a minute. Do you really think it's possible that the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence and Pi don't really exist but are just an illusion created by a mechanism that can't even produce them precisely? peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #223 We'll talk tomorrow then. Got the email. Jerad

Jerad Let me know if you got the email. We'll discuss as you get the hang of it fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #221

If you think the forms don’t exist then create an algorithm that can fool the observer, If you do so my hypothesis is falsified.

Give me your form comparison criteria. And a form to test. Jerad

Jerad says, And yet, if we’re right it did. You think that forms you see are proof that evolution isn’t sufficient. But what if that really is the mechanism. Then you have been fooled into to thinking that Platonic forms exist when they don’t. Is that not a possible interpretation? I say, In the context of my game it is possible. That is why this is a scientific question and not a philosophical one. If you think the forms don't exist then create an algorithm that can fool the observer, If you do so my hypothesis is falsified. It's pretty much that simple peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #219

I would be more than willing to share my spreadsheet with anyone who is interested. just let me know how I can contact you.

Well, put it up in Dropbox or something so we can see what you're talking about!! If you want to email it to me then ellazimm@gmx.co.uk will do nicely. I'll need directions in using it as well of course. Jerad

Jerad says, I think it is time for you to provide us with your code or algorithm and some results so we can see what you’re talking about. I say, Right now my game exists as a crudely coded spread sheet. In that state it works very well for my personal/professional purposes. I'm not a programer. A couple of programer buddies have looked at it and promised to work on coding an app when they get time. I would be more than willing to share my spreadsheet with anyone who is interested. just let me know how I can contact you. The whole idea came from a "game" detailed here http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417818/scientists-develop-financial-turing-test/ I have contacted the paper's original authors and they have no problem with any use as long as any resulting papers written give them the customary citation. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #216

As I said it depends on my level of knowledge. Today I might be at a level on the y-axes that all of Rodentia might make the grade after some study the set would probably narrow If you are asking how high the Y-axes goes in God’s mind I don’t know, perhaps to infinity. Just because I don’t yet know what the tenth level is does not mean I can’t intuit the first level. Or that some how the y-axes does not exist.

Do you see how hard this is to track? How hard it is to gleen any meaning? I think it is time for you to provide us with your code or algorithm and some results so we can see what you're talking about.

How is it even logically possible that a brain created by a process that can’t ever produce perfection can readily recognize where physical things deviate from a perfect ideal?

Show us a perfect ideal. Show us how to compare and quantify real world examples to the perfect ideal. If this is going to be a meaningful concept then it has to have some substance and rigour. What is the perfect rabbit and how do you judge that something deviates from that ideal? Jerad

fifthmonarchyman #214

My claim is that Algorithms like evolution can not approximate platonic forms sufficiently enough to fool an observer.

And yet, if we're right it did. You think that forms you see are proof that evolution isn't sufficient. But what if that really is the mechanism. Then you have been fooled into to thinking that Platonic forms exist when they don't. Is that not a possible interpretation? Anyway, Zach has been very patient with you and tried hard to get you to explain your approach. I think now that we need to see some hard results or your coding to judge how well you are fulfilling your claims. Do you have a website or can you give us your algorithm/code so we can judge for ourselves? At some point, when you claim results, you have to lay your cards on the table. And we really, really need to figure out why you believe in Platonic forms. Is it just an intellectual step that feels right to you or have you got some grand cosmic argument that forces them to exist? Jerad

zac said, Do only species in the genus Mus qualify as the platonic form “mouse”, or do other Muridae make the grade? What about Muroidea? Rodentia? I say As I said it depends on my level of knowledge. Today I might be at a level on the y-axes that all of Rodentia might make the grade after some study the set would probably narrow If you are asking how high the Y-axes goes in God's mind I don't know, perhaps to infinity. Just because I don't yet know what the tenth level is does not mean I can't intuit the first level. Or that some how the y-axes does not exist you say, Nothing in the real world is perfect, including things made by intelligent beings. I say, Exactly!! but for some reason given enough time and resources we finite human's can tell exactly where things in the real (read physical) world deviate from the Ideal form. How could that be???? How is it even logically possible that a brain created by a process that can't ever produce perfection can readily recognize where physical things deviate from a perfect ideal? peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: If you were to code a lion/tiger into my game it would not fool the observer into believing it was a lion ever. But you just said "To me a hybrid between a lion and a tiger is a Lion to the extent it approximates the form of a lion and a tiger to the extant it approximates a tiger." fifthmonarchyman: That depends on my level of knowledge. Well ... then ... what is your answer? Do only species in the genus Mus qualify as the platonic form "mouse", or do other Muridae make the grade? What about Muroidea? Rodentia? fifthmonarchyman: My claim is that Algorithms like evolution can not approximate platonic forms sufficiently enough to fool an observer. Straight and symmetric are platonic forms. Evolution creates straight and symmetric forms such that objective observers say they are straight or symmetric. If you say they aren't perfect, well, that's hardly an insight. Nothing in the real world is perfect, including things made by intelligent beings. Zachriel

Zac says If you mean evolution can’t create something straight or symmetrical, then you’re wrong. I say, Do you honestly think that is my claim after all this time? If so I'm pretty sure I will never be able to explain it to you. For probably the twentieth time worded at least 5 different ways............ My claim is that Algorithms like evolution can not approximate platonic forms sufficiently enough to fool an observer. peace fifthmonarchyman

zac says, You had said “An organism is either a {name of species} or it is not there is no varying degrees of {name of species}.” Now, it turns out, there are varying degrees. I say, no not at all, If you were to code a lion/tiger into my game it would not fool the observer into believing it was a lion ever. If you asked the observer what it was in the string that cause him to reject it he would point to all the things that did not correspond to the form of lion You say, Do only species in the genus Mus qualify as mice, or do other Muridae make the grade? What about Muroidea? Rodentia? I say, That depends on my level of knowledge. Remember the Y-axes? At first all the observer sees is grammar and structure given time things like rhyme become evident. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: To me a hybrid between a lion and a tiger is a Lion to the extent it approximates the form of a lion and a tiger to the extant it approximates a tiger. You had said "An organism is either a {name of species} or it is not there is no varying degrees of {name of species}." Now, it turns out, there are varying degrees. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman: Therefore it can’t approximate them. That is the point. If you mean evolution can't create something straight or symmetrical, then you're wrong. fifthmonarchyman: Actually I very much do. Do only species in the genus Mus qualify as mice, or do other Muridae make the grade? What about Muroidea? Rodentia? Zachriel

Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, comments "For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing." Dr. Arthur Jones - did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids - Fish, Fossils and Evolution - Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14 What is Speciation? (Cichlids) - July 2012 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-16T00_41_12-07_00 "Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70) bornagain77

Zac said: Species have fuzzy edges. A hybrid between a lion and a tiger is not a lion and not not a lion. I say, Now it's you who is being all Zen. To me a hybrid between a lion and a tiger is a Lion to the extent it approximates the form of a lion and a tiger to the extant it approximates a tiger. no fuzziness in fact no difficulty at all Peace fifthmonarchyman

zac says, Then there are no circles. I say, If you are a materialist then there are no circles. It must be a sad life peace fifthmonarchyman

You say. Sure you can, as long as there is feedback to closeness to the platonic form. I say, Yeah as Ive repeatedly said, If you know the form in advance an Algorithm can easily approximate it. You say, Evolution doesn’t work with platonic forms, I say, Therefore it can't approximate them. That is the point. You say, You don’t really think “mouse” is a platonic form? I say, Actually I very much do. I believe that species exist in reality outside the cave or in the mind of God if you like independent of anything in the physical world. That sort of thinking goes back to the very first chapter of Genesis peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Give a person any physical shape and enough time and resources and he will show you exactly where it deviates from the Ideal circle Then there are no circles. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman: A string is either the Fibonacci Sequence or it is not there is no varying degrees of sequencehood. Sure, but an algorithm can recognize the Fibonacci sequence. Furthermore, if you provide a finite sequence, there are other patterns that fit it just as well. fifthmonarchyman: An organism is either a T-Rex or it is not there is no varying degrees of T-Rexhood. Not a T. Rex http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02725/lythronax_2725924b.jpg Species have fuzzy edges. A hybrid between a lion and a tiger is not a lion and not not a lion. Zachriel

Zac says Yet people will point to near circles and say they are circles. I say, Give a person any physical shape and enough time and resources and he will show you exactly where it deviates from the Ideal circle peace fifthmonarchyman

A couple more examples A string is either the Fibonacci Sequence or it is not there is no varying degrees of sequencehood. A structure is either a bacterial flagellum or it is not there is no varying degrees of flagellumhood. An organism is either a T-Rex or it is not there is no varying degrees of T-Rexhood. The only way to deny any of this is to deny the reality of the forms. I can't see how you would ever prove such a claim to anyone who does not assume materialism from the outset peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Before in the other thread I said you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but my game assumes you can’t fool most of the people all of the time You said "infallibly" ten times before "can't fool", then eight times afterwards, even after we suggested you meant a statistically significant result. fifthmonarchyman: An algorithm can’t converge if we are talking about platonic forms. Sure you can, as long as there is feedback to closeness to the platonic form. Evolution doesn't work with platonic forms, in any case. You don't really think "mouse" is a platonic form? fifthmonarchyman: A shape is either a circle or it is not there are no varying degrees of circlehood Yet people will point to near circles and say they are circles. Those silly humans! Zachriel

Zac says The feedback is only yes/no, but for the algorithm to converge, there has to be a population that can be sorted through with varying degrees of fitness. I say, exactly!!!!! An algorithm can't converge if we are talking about platonic forms. A shape is either a circle or it is not there are no varying degrees of circlehood A string is either a Shakespearean Sonnet or it is not there are no varying degrees of Sonnethood peace fifthmonarchyman

Zac said. Before the test required infallibility, so that’s changed. I say, I am tired of having to repeat myself endlessly with you Before in the other thread I said you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but my game assumes you can't fool most of the people all of the time I again feel the frustration level rising. We have went over each of these points before. Now for some reason you want to pretend that none of that happened. I can't for the life of me understand why you would do that unless it is that you think you will be able to find a loophole the second time around. perhaps you are hoping that a new lurker will think you are making objections that I can't answer. regardless I don't have the time or the patience for a Groundhog day experience if you have any questions I have not already answered feel free to ask them peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: There are lots of ways I can tell it was an algorithm. You haven't provided a non-algorithmic way to determine the nth digit of pi. fifthmonarchyman: 2) Convert one or more of them to numbers by a secret key. Has to be at least two, one a control for comparison. fifthmonarchyman: 6) If a majority of observers object send it back. Before the test required infallibility, so that's changed. 6) The feedback is only yes/no, but for the algorithm to converge, there has to be a population that can be sorted through with varying degrees of fitness. Zachriel

You say, You just indicated you can only tell it was an algorithm by using an algorithm to compare it to. I say, Don't ever recall saying "only". There are lots of ways I can tell it was an algorithm. My game is one of them You say, If you mean a decimal expansion is always an approximation, that doesn’t require an algorithm, but can be shown by deduction. I say, I so much agree but deduction does not seem to be a strong suite among critics here. If it was no one would claim that evolution could approximate the forms sufficiently enough to fool an observer peace fifthmonarchyman

Zac my game can be described like this 1) Take the set of Shakespearean sonnets. 2) Convert one or more of them to numbers by a secret key. 3) Have an algorithm determine whatever patterns it detects in the coded strings. 4) Have the algorithm generate a new sequence based on the detected pattern. 5) Have observers compare this generated pattern to the original set (with feedback) to see if they can tell the genuine article from the algorithmically generated sequence. 6) If a majority of observers object send it back. fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: not if it does not know what digit I want. No, it doesn't read your mind, but if you ask for the nth digit, it provides the nth digit. Of course, an expansion would do the same. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman: It means the observer will always be able to tell the difference between what an algorithm produces and the form/spesfication “Pi” You just indicated you can only tell it was an algorithm by using an algorithm to compare it to. If you mean a decimal expansion is always an approximation, that doesn't require an algorithm, but can be shown by deduction. Zachriel

Zac says, it’s possible to calculate the nth digit of pi in certain bases without calculating all the preceding digits, so the algorithm can return your answer directly for whatever digit you want. I say, not if it does not know what digit I want. That is after all the point Peace fifthmonarchyman

1) Take two sonnets. 2) Convert them to numbers by a secret key, the experimental and the control. 3) From the first sonnet, have an algorithm determine whatever patterns it detect. 4) Have the algorithm generate a new sequence based on the detected pattern. 5) Have observers compare this generated pattern to the control sequence to see if they can tell the genuine article from the algorithmically generated sequence. 6) If even a single observer objects, send it back.

Is that correct? If so, there's a lot of problems with your game. Zachriel

zac says And this means what exactly? I say It means the observer will always be able to tell the difference between what an algorithm produces and the form/specification "Pi" peace fifthmonarchyman

By the way, it's possible to calculate the nth digit of pi in certain bases without calculating all the preceding digits, so the algorithm can return your answer directly for whatever digit you want. Zachriel

Zac says, Right. 4) Have the algorithm generate a NEW sequence based on the detected pattern. I say, yes but not 5) Have observers compare this generated pattern to the control sequence to see if they can tell the difference. The observers are not looking to see if the new sequence matches the control sequence they are looking to see if the new sequence matches the specification that the control sequence approximates. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: NO but I can calculate the thousandth digit once I know the specification/form. What is the difference between the model and the "actual process"? fifthmonarchyman: The model can’t know at which point I will look so it can’t (ever)know at what point to halt. And this means what exactly? Zachriel

Zac says, How did you determine whether the digits looked right or not? You mean you can intuit the thousandth digit of pi? I say, NO but I can calculate the thousandth digit once I know the specification/form. The model can't know at which point I will look so it can't (ever)know at what point to halt. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: We are not trying to duplicate any string exactly we are trying to approximate a form/specification. Why can't you provide a clear step-by-step specification for your game? fifthmonarchyman: We are not trying to duplicate any string exactly we are trying to approximate a form/specification. Right. 4) Have the algorithm generate a NEW sequence based on the detected pattern. Zachriel

zac says Is this the process? If so, there’s lots of problems. I say. No it's not the process at all. We are not trying to duplicate any string exactly we are trying to approximate a form/specification. I can (and have) compared 2 real "sonnets" against a model and the observer can still pick out the fake peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: Suppose I’m modeling a process that calculates the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. Even if my model is an algorithm for computing Pi. An observer will be able to tell the difference between the actual process and the model. Huh? What is the difference between the model and the "actual process" * ? fifthmonarchyman: He will do this by simply looking a digit or two past where the model halted. How did you determine whether the digits looked right or not? You mean you can intuit the thousandth digit of pi? Did we describe your game correctly (#183)? -- * ETA Zachriel

Let me take this a step further here is a very simple example Suppose I'm modeling a process that calculates the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Even if my model is an algorithm for computing Pi. An observer will be able to tell the difference between the actual process and the model. He will do this by simply looking a digit or two past where the model halted. There is no way around it algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a “form” closely enough to fool an observer. I really hope that helps peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: I run a model for a given process and compare the extrapolation produced by the model against actual results. Still have no idea what you mean. We know how to follow a step-by-step process, so not sure why we are having troubles communicating.

1) Take two sonnets. 2) Convert them to numbers by a secret key, the experimental and the control. 3) From the first sonnet, have an algorithm determine whatever patterns it detect. 4) Have the algorithm generate a new sequence based on the detected pattern. 5) Have observers compare this generated pattern to the control sequence to see if they can tell the difference. 6) If even a single observer objects, send it back.

Is this the process? If so, there's lots of problems. Zachriel: You provide instances, a blackbox determines a pattern, then, if requested, provides new instances from the class of patterns. So, do you concede that algorithms can detect patterns, such such as ellipses and the Fibonacci series as you gave above? Zachriel

Zac, let me try and go at this another way. Right now I use my "game" mainly to evaluate the strength of various forecasting models. I run a model for a given process and compare the extrapolation produced by the model against actual results. The strength of a particular model corresponds to how well it reproduces the actual data. What I discovered was that no matter how good the model is an observer (with no knowledge of the process) can always tell the difference between the real data and the model, given feed back of course. If you ask the observer how he can tell the difference between the two strings he will describe for you a part of the specification/form of the real process. I can then tweak the algorithmic model with this information and rerun the test. At that point the observer will notice another detail of the form and the process can be repeated. The point is the model never gets to the point that the observer can not distinguish it from the real process. This is because the model is only extrapolating from information I have given it and not intuiting the form/specification. I hope that helps you to understand what I'm trying to say. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: NO what I mean is the algorithm is given a string and asked to intuit the form it approximates. The same. You provide instances, a blackbox determines a pattern, then, if requested, provides new instances from the class of patterns. Keep in mind, though, that there is generally some ambiguity involved. For any finite string, there are an infinite number of patterns that includes the finite string. If shown a circle, is the circle a special case of ellipses, or ellipses a special case of oval, or ovals a special case of closed curves, or closed curves a special case of closed shapes, or closed shapes a special case of shapes? fifthmonarchyman: again my game does not ask you to extrapolate the exact string. Sorry, we just don't think you can write sonnets of the quality and character of Shakespeare, even having Shakespeare as a model. We could be wrong, but even then, it's not much of a test, as most humans would fail. Are you still considering extrapolating a sonnet from a short sequence of numbers? Humans can't do it from numbers, so not sure whether an algorithm could do it would be relevant. Zachriel

Zac said, So, what you really meant was that the algorithm is given a specification, either an example of a class or part of a longer sequence, then asked to extrapolate. I say, NO what I mean is the algorithm is given a string and asked to intuit the form it approximates. Extrapolation is bottom up intuition is top down. you say, if we give you the first line of a Shakespearean sonnet, one of which you have no knowledge, you can provide the rest of the sonnet? That’s seems rather doubtful. I say, again my game does not ask you to extrapolate the exact string. I'm not sure how many ways I can express this. It asks you to intuit the form and approximate it in your own string sufficiently well enough to fool an observer you say, Algorithms are excellent at extrapolating strings I say, yes and if I was asking for extrapolation that fact might be relevant peace fifthmonarchyman

Zac said It’s not scientific, but mathematical. I say, OK if all you mean by your claim is "there are an infinite number of algorithms for each and every finite string." Then I have never disagreed. This is true but entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making. I pointed this out to KeithS in about the 50th post of that mammoth thread. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: it meets the requirements of my claim exactly. You will notice that our previous response implies that the algorithm has *no* knowledge of the required sequence. Your claim was "my argument that algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a 'form' closely enough to fool an observer unless the algorithm 'knows' the specification at the very beginning." So, what you really meant was that the algorithm is given a specification, either an example of a class or part of a longer sequence, then asked to extrapolate. Algorithms are excellent at extrapolating strings, including Fibonacci sequences. They are also excellent at recognizing classes of objects, then returning any number of other instances. As for your third example, in line with the Fibonacci example, if we give you the first line of a Shakespearean sonnet, one of which you have no knowledge, you can provide the rest of the sonnet? That's seems rather doubtful. Zachriel

zac said, So, you were given a specification, and then you extrapolated. I say, No I was given a string then I intuited a specification that it approximated. Not sure how many more ways I can express this You say. In other words, it doesn’t meet the requirements of your claim above. I say, No it meets the requirements of my claim exactly. Again not sure how many more ways I can explain it. In order for me to be violating the requirements of my claim the string would have to "be" the specification. It is not the case and it can not be the case Immaterial forms can not be represented exactly in a physical media. This is self evidently obvious peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: The cool thing is that your claim is not philosophical but scientific. It's not scientific, but mathematical. All finite strings are "computable", even by your own heterodox definition. The simplest algorithm is simply the identity function. As there are a finite number of finite strings, and they can be iterated, it means there is an algorithm for each and every string. In fact, there are an infinite number of algorithms for each and every finite string. fifthmonarchyman: 1) I can look at the first 10 numbers in the Fibonacci sequence intuit the specification and easily produce the the next 50 numbers So, you were given a specification, and then you extrapolated. In other words, it doesn't meet the requirements of your claim above. fifthmonarchyman: 2)I can look at a circle intuit the form and approximate it in any medium that I can manipulate in an infinite range of sizes. So, you were given a specification, and then you extrapolated. In other words, it doesn't meet the requirements of your claim above. fifthmonarchyman: 3)I can look at a Shakespearean Sonnet coded in numbers intuit the form and fool a observer with my own string. Still have no idea what you mean. But, you were given a specification, and then you extrapolated. In other words, it doesn't meet the requirements of your claim above. Zachriel

Zac says, Any finite string is computable. You do not have to know the specification “at the beginning” to choose one that resembles the “form”. I say, The cool thing is that your claim is not philosophical but scientific. If you believe this then prove it. Produce a string that can fool the observer in my game. So far I've not seen it. lets do science You say, By the way, this has nothing to do with computability. A hypercomputation can’t fill your prespecification either, I say, That may be true but I can do it! 1)I can look at the first 10 numbers in the Fibonacci sequence intuit the specification and easily produce the the next 50 numbers 2)I can look at a circle intuit the form and approximate it in any medium that I can manipulate in an infinite range of sizes. 3)I can look at a Shakespearean Sonnet coded in numbers intuit the form and fool a observer with my own string. 3)I can look at a canine, intuit the form and tell you what it's marsupial equivalent would look like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine 3) I can intuit that an intelligent alien civilization would assign significance to prime numbers and produce a signal that they would know is designed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message We as intelligent agents do this sort of thing all the time it's how we communicate with people we don't know. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: You have already in the other thread conceded my argument that algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a “form” closely enough to fool an observer unless the algorithm “knows” the specification at the very beginning. Any finite string is computable. You do not have to know the specification "at the beginning" to choose one that resembles the "form". By the way, this has nothing to do with computability. A hypercomputation can't fill your prespecification either, unless you either say what you want, or choose from the ensemble of results after the fact. Zachriel

Jerad says, Please, can you be a little less obscure and more definitive. We are tying to understand but you seem to enjoy being vague and obtuse. I say, I give you my clear honest straightforward opinion that you won't follow the evidence if it means you must give up what you hold dear and you are not happy. I try to take it slowly so as not to force myself instead hoping you will come to some conclusions on your own and you are not happy. I agree with your point on the objectivity of mathematics and you claim I don't understand what you are saying I guess I just can't win with you I'll let you have the last word peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #171 Okay, things may have gotten a bit tricky to track. But you did say that "You have already in the other thread conceded my argument that algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a “form” closely enough to fool an observer unless the algorithm “knows” the specification at the very beginning." Which I don't think was true. And you have seemingly missed the point of several mathematical examples I have posted (confusing the size of the fibonacci sequence with a number in the sequence). Let's just make sure we're all clear on what we're saying in the future . . . yes?? Jerad

It took zac nearly 900 posts to concede that small point. I'm not going back through the process again. It's not worth the trouble. If he wishes to deny it all happened I'm cool with that. Just don't expect me to get on the marry-go-round again Jerad says, You are assuming way too much. You say things which you think are obvious and unassailable and then if we don’t scream bloody murder over them you’re assuming we concede. I say, what??? Actually I assumed you did not agree with me that evidence could be nonphysical and you jumped all over me for that. I can't think of a single thing that you have conceded to me. I don't expect you to ever concede anything here. I would be shocked if you did, peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #169 Please, can you be a little less obscure and more definitive. We are tying to understand but you seem to enjoy being vague and obtuse. There's nothing wrong with clarity. Jerad

zac said, We did? We don’t even know what you mean! We tried to get a coherent idea of your experiment, but never did. I say from here https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/an-attempt-at-computing-dfsci-for-english-language/#comments

fifthmonarchyman: You can’t compute a string if you don’t already know it’s specification. ZAC: That’s actually a slightly different question, which has to do with choosing an algorithm which computes the string. While such an algorithm exists, you won’t be able to tell which one. That’s true of a Shakespearean sonnet, but it’s also true of a random sequence, or any string for that matter. peace

fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #162

You have already in the other thread conceded my argument that algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a “form” closely enough to fool an observer unless the algorithm “knows” the specification at the very beginning.

No way (as Zach said) that I'm agreeing to that. You are assuming way too much. You say things which you think are obvious and unassailable and then if we don't scream bloody murder over them you're assuming we concede. I guess. But we don't. We\re trying to politely disagree with you. And I'm pretty sure now, that you don't understand some of my examples at least. Even though you say: ah, we have some common ground. If you want to have a real dialogue then it's important that you're honest with us. And yourself. Jerad

fifthmonarchyman #162

Have you even read the comments on very this thread and the disagreements about whether these numbers are present in nature at all? There are always arguments about decimal places.

Except that the number of spirals on the face of a sunflower or around a pine cone are one of the fibonacci numbers EXACTLY. No approximations. Please try harder to pay attention and keep up. Jerad

fifthmonarchyman #160

Agreed that is my point and what the quotes were for. For a timeless observer all temporarility is meaningless.

So then the dinosaurs do not exist right now.

You can’t say things like “created” or “wiped out” when speaking about the reality of such a timeless being. There is only “is” or “is not” for a being on the outside of the universe looking in.

Too Zen for me. Give me some parameters to work with.

Surely you agree with that. If dinos ever existed then from God’s perspective they EXIST.

You're asking me IF dinos did exist (which they clearly did) then they (now) exist in the mind of some mythical being? I don't find that worth trying to track.

Sure there is always argument at the edges of sets be it approximations of the golden ratio or species. I would argue the sets approximating the forms are unbounded but centered on the forms themselves.

So, what is a 'species' then? Where is the line?

One observer might conclude that particular rectangle does not approximate the ratio while another that it does. That disagreement does not change the fact that the ratio exists objectively in the slightest. It just illustrates that finite subjective observers on the inside of the universe are sometimes mistaken.

BUT it doesn't mean it has the Golden Ration which we know. Which is defined. Which is exactl Jerad

fifthmonarchyman #157

The Fibonacci numbers are an infinite sequence the spirals in sunflowers are finite. That is what we mean by approximating.

That is not at all what is meant by approximating. The number of spirals on a pine cone are A fibonacci number. One of the numbers. Not a sequence. ONE NUMBER IN THE SEQUENCE. You say you understand things I say but it's pretty apparent you don't really. You're not tracking the words I'm using. PLEASE pay attention. And don't pretend to understand if you don't. Jerad

fifthmonarchyman: Have you even read the comments on very this thread and the disagreements about whether these numbers are present in nature at all? There are always arguments about decimal places. With Nautilus shells, it's not a question of approximation. The average is quite distant from the Golden Spiral. Typical measured ratios are between about 1.24 to 1.43, not 1.62. It's not a case of average of 1.62 with some variation. fifthmonarchyman: Who said that the boundary of a species was defined by reproductive isolation? Biologists do not require total reproductive isolation to define a species, but sufficient isolation so as to maintain distinguishing characteristics. fifthmonarchyman: reproductive isolation is only a issue if you define species by reproductive isolation which I do not . Um, that's rather the point. Because species are not always totally isolated, it means the edges of the set are fuzzy. Hybrids, in particular, confound species boundaries. fifthmonarchyman: You have already in the other thread conceded my argument that algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a “form” closely enough to fool an observer unless the algorithm “knows” the specification at the very beginning. We did? We don't even know what you mean! We tried to get a coherent idea of your experiment, but never did. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman #152

would both descriptions be equally valid or would one be more correct than another?

It depends on how closely they adhere to reality.

There is no ‘ideal’ T-Rex. If you took all the T-Rexs that ever existed (if it’s even possible to say exactly when the species began and ended) you’d have a spectrum of heights, weights, colours, temperaments, etc.

Just like the variation in the approximations of the golden ratio that we see in nature.

No, variation between individuals is different (and for different reasons) than variation between potential natural manifestations of some ideal.

and just like the golden ratio’s approximations we could group the spectrum into a set and say these reflect what a T-Rex is and those outside the spectrum do not.

Except we do know what The Golden Ratio is EXACTLY. You say you understand my examples but you say things that imply that you don't really.

We do that with all species be it T-Rex or Tweety bird .

Again, variations between individual members of a species are not analogous to variations between grossly different types. The distinction matters. Jerad

Zac said, It’s often fairly easy to determine if a set approximates a given number. Nautilus shells, for instance, are logarithmic, but not golden spirals. I say, my word Have you even read the comments on very this thread and the disagreements about whether these numbers are present in nature at all? There are always arguments about decimal places. you say, Species tend to blend to nearby species, and reproductive isolation may be graded. I say, Who said that the boundary of a species was defined by reproductive isolation? check this out http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/26/1412627111.abstract You are assuming what you need to prove. reproductive isolation is only a issue if you define species by reproductive isolation which I do not . On the other hand if we consider species to be sets approximating ideal platonic forms reproductive isolation and mixing at the edges is no problem at all. Ovals are sometimes confused with circles this is not evidence against the existence of circles. If join a square to a rectangle you can sometimes get a rectangle this is not evidence against the existence of squares. look Zac I'm not sure what this conversation is supposed to accomplish. You have already in the other thread conceded my argument that algorithmic process like evolution can not approximate a "form" closely enough to fool an observer unless the algorithm "knows" the specification at the very beginning. Are you now claiming that when it comes to biology specifications/forms do not exist? I'm not sure how you could ever convince someone of that if they did not already assume materialism. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: One observer might conclude that particular rectangle does not approximate the ratio while another that it does. It's often fairly easy to determine if a set approximates a given number. Nautilus shells, for instance, are logarithmic, but not golden spirals. Species tend to blend to nearby species, and reproductive isolation may be graded. Zachriel

Jerad The idea of ‘right now’ is non-sensical if you’re timeless. I say Agreed that is my point and what the quotes were for. For a timeless observer all temporarility is meaningless. You can't say things like "created" or "wiped out" when speaking about the reality of such a timeless being. There is only "is" or "is not" for a being on the outside of the universe looking in. Surely you agree with that. If dinos ever existed then from God's perspective they EXIST. Zac says, Actually, biological species often have fuzzy edges. It’s one of the crucial observations Darwin made in “Origin of Species”. I say, Sure there is always argument at the edges of sets be it approximations of the golden ratio or species. I would argue the sets approximating the forms are unbounded but centered on the forms themselves. One observer might conclude that particular rectangle does not approximate the ratio while another that it does. That disagreement does not change the fact that the ratio exists objectively in the slightest. It just illustrates that finite subjective observers on the inside of the universe are sometimes mistaken. peace fifthmonarchyman

Jerad 155 You're actually supporting my view and I have enjoyed your appreciation of these marvels of nature. You don't see any evidence of design at work the way I (and others) do, but at least you recognize the beauty and spookyness that we see and you don't try to deny it. fifthmonarchyman 157 Very good point also that I'd agree with. It depends on what we mean by "Exactly" and why would we be forced to argue about that? Intelligent, educated people all over the world, and through history - have admired these aspects of nature. To simply deny that they exist strikes me as being more "loony" as the people who exaggerate their significance. Silver Asiatic

BA77 - your commentary in posts 90 & 94 about nature and beauty -- are works of beauty in themselves! :-)

It would be a very dull artist who painted all his paintings to the same exact mathematical standards to which he constructed his easel(s) with. It would be worse art critic who expected him to do as such.

A wonderful thought ... of course, when we think "how much do I love my wife, or loved ones"? is our first response to reach for the spreadsheet or calculator and "do the math"? The reductionist world of materialism actually does just that. Poetry, love, art, wonder - is just what we've heard on this thread: "nothing but a pattern". And, of course, the pattern is a physical/chemical response. There's nothing to marvel at and no reason to have wonder. The saddest part is there is no reason to be thankful. You mentioned that our observance of Fibonacci sequences (we can add other mathematical fine-tunings) are "uncanny". I give Jerad credit for expressing admiration. He called them "spooky" and that at least shows some openness to some mysteries that transcend what materialism can explain. ,,,But what you are doing wd400 is not presenting any actual scientific evidence that unguided random processes can produce so many uncanny, and beautiful, instances of the golden ratio in the universe. No you have not done that in the least save for vague allusions,,,, despite the fact that you insist unguided processes produce the ‘appearance of golden ratios’. Silver Asiatic

last one you say The Fibonacci numbers turn up EXACTLY as the number of spirals in sunflowers and pinecones. No approximating. EXACTLY. I say, NO!!!! The Fibonacci numbers are an infinite sequence the spirals in sunflowers are finite. That is what we mean by approximating. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: We do that with all species be it T-Rex or Tweety bird . Actually, biological species often have fuzzy edges. It's one of the crucial observations Darwin made in "Origin of Species". Zachriel

Silver Asiatic #150

So, it depends on what you expect. We’re talking about approximations and people have recognized the beauty and awe-inspiring wonder of these commonly observed spirals. Non-theists have said the same. This is the human experience. A denial of the beauty or an unreasonable expectation of mathematical precision, in my opinion, is not a good argument. It makes the atheistic position appear absurd and inhuman. But beyond that, it’s interesting how roles can be reversed at times. Do you expect mathematical precision in the various claims about evolution? Would it be true to say that “there are no transitional fossils” because none conform to mathematical precision?

Do you know what the Golden Ratio is exactly? It's (1+sqrt(5))/2. The Fibonacci numbers turn up EXACTLY as the number of spirals in sunflowers and pinecones. No approximating. EXACTLY. It is rare and spooky and beautiful when you do find that kind of precision. Nature is like a cricket match. There are rules/principles/laws which govern the general behaviour. But there's a lot of play in the system. If there weren't we'd have figured it all out by now. So, we expect to be able to discern general statistical trends. Small variations are expected, good even. Large ones need to be examined and checked out. Think about your bank balance. If we looked at it over a period of several years then (I suspect) we'd see some seasonal and monthly cycles but there would probably be an upper and lower bound within in which your balance oscillates. So, if we see a deposit or withdrawal for $30,000 we would become suspicious. (unless that was 'normal'. You aren't Sir Richard Branson I trust? :-) ) Look for patterns, try to understand what they are and see if you can figure out where they come from. When the patterns are fuzzy it's harder and takes more time. Interestingly enough the rules of the universe (as we understand them now) are much fewer than the rules of cricket. (Thanks to Dr Brian Cox for the analogy.) Jerad

you said, Then you haven’t understood my mathematical examples. I say, I composed that post before I saw your mathematical examples. It's a pitfall of this sort of communication I fully understand them and that is why I said we have common ground. Lets see if we can build on that. when I get back peace fifthmonarchyman

You say, Did your glean that from him revealing that to you? I say, Yes In my worldview revelation is the only source of knowledge. The particular revelation about dinos came about by general means. There is also special revelation but that is beyond the scope of this thread. peace fifthmonarchyman

you say, I could describe my virtual T-Rex but it would differ from yours. I say, would both descriptions be equally valid or would one be more correct than another? you say, There is no ‘ideal’ T-Rex. If you took all the T-Rexs that ever existed (if it’s even possible to say exactly when the species began and ended) you’d have a spectrum of heights, weights, colours, temperaments, etc. I say Just like the variation in the approximations of the golden ratio that we see in nature. and just like the golden ratio's approximations we could group the spectrum into a set and say these reflect what a T-Rex is and those outside the spectrum do not. We do that with all species be it T-Rex or Tweety bird . peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #147

So, you can know some of the mind of God.

Of course if he chooses to reveal it to me

But you said his mind contains the idea of dinosaurs. Did your glean that from him revealing that to you?

That you would even ask where or how many when it comes to forms shows that you are starting from a worldview that assumes that questions that assume physicality are the only sort that mater

Then you haven't understood my mathematical examples. Do you even know what Goldbach's Conjecture is? Or the Reimann-Zeta hypothesis? Or Zorn's Lemma? Are you sure you should be judging my statements when you haven't understood them?

I still can’t see or experience your cave or dinosaurs.

That is because you refuse to follow the evidence. I told you this would happen ;-)

No, it's because I cannot see your dream world exactly the same way you do. You have given me no 'evidence'. You've only vaguely described some things which are no doubt vivid to you but are definitely only seen through a glass darkly to me. Jerad

wd400 @ 88

It’s not about the 8th decimal.

Why not? You could just as easily demand that kind of precision. You'd find that unreasonable, I'm sure, but the same principle is at work when you dismiss the phenomenon this way.

A turn of DNA (not within on d.p) Nautilis shell (not within one d.p.) Hurricanes (vary greatly) Sspiral galaxies (vary greatly) Sea shells (vary greatly) Sex ratio in a beehive (vary greatly) Ratios of human body proprtions (vary greatly, most of the means aren’t close).

You know enough about nature not to expect absolute regularity and uniformity. Of course, measures vary greatly. That's the beauty and surprise we find - in fact, variety and surprise are essential to beauty itself. So, it depends on what you expect. We're talking about approximations and people have recognized the beauty and awe-inspiring wonder of these commonly observed spirals. Non-theists have said the same. This is the human experience. A denial of the beauty or an unreasonable expectation of mathematical precision, in my opinion, is not a good argument. It makes the atheistic position appear absurd and inhuman. But beyond that, it's interesting how roles can be reversed at times. Do you expect mathematical precision in the various claims about evolution? Would it be true to say that "there are no transitional fossils" because none conform to mathematical precision? Most of evolutionary theory is based on approximations. Evolutionists find remarkable evidence even on imaginary data -- filling in gaps with what "might have existed" in the past. WD, we know that about evolution - so to suddenly see you demanding mathematical precision about observations in nature that conform, in a general sense, with the golden mean appears unreasonable and as if you're reacting to a bias. Silver Asiatic

Zac says, Are you saying we can observe a non-avian dinosaur roaming the Earth? I say, I observe a fossil I logically infer that the creature that it belongs to actually existed. no theory no hypothesis just an observation and logic. I have work to do I'll check back later peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #144

If dinosaurs existed at any time they exist “right now” from the perspective of a Timeless observer to the universe.

The idea of 'right now' is non-sensical if you're timeless.

You could imagine what a T-Rex looks like before you even knew that a person called Fifthmonarchyman existed.

But I didn't know that that was the virtual dinosaur you were thinking of. I still don't know what your cave looks like. How big it is. How long it is. How dark it is. Does it have dripping lichen? Are the walls darkened from generations of cave dwellers' fire pits? Is there a poop corner? Are there bats? The idea of T-Rex being some kind of ideal form is silly anyway. Just like humans each animal was unique and different. There is no 'ideal' T-Rex. If you took all the T-Rexs that ever existed (if it's even possible to say exactly when the species began and ended) you'd have a spectrum of heights, weights, colours, temperaments, etc. The T-Rex in your head will be different from the one in my head.

I’d bet you could even describe it in some detail.

I could describe my virtual T-Rex but it would differ from yours. Jerad

you say, So, you can know some of the mind of God. I say, Of course if he chooses to reveal it to me You say, Where is the world of forms? Do things exist in triplicate? I say, That you would even ask where or how many when it comes to forms shows that you are starting from a worldview that assumes that questions that assume physicality are the only sort that mater You say, I still can’t see or experience your cave or dinosaurs. I say, That is because you refuse to follow the evidence. I told you this would happen ;-) peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman: I’m sure that to be considered scientific BA was thinking an observation must at least associated with a theory or hypothesis. The hypothesis is that non-avian dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. The evidence is the fossil. We can extend our hypothesis by determining how they walked, what they ate, how they reproduced. If someone suggests they are not really bones of real organisms, we can marshal specific evidence based on our hypothesis to refute these objections (blood vessels, cell structure, wearing of the teeth, etc.). fifthmonarchyman: It explains a lot to know you think that science equals bare observation. Are you saying we can observe a non-avian dinosaur roaming the Earth? Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman #142

Though if I had to guess I’m sure you would agree with Jerad that only physical observations count.

Not something I've espoused. I said observer independent which is not the same thing. Do not put words in my mouth please. There is a question of where or not you can 'observe' something like Goldbach's Conjecture. Most people get exposed to it by reading some physical text or hearing about it (also a physical experience) but I'm not sure grasping the concept is really observational. It requires some thought and mental processing. The words themselves are not the conjecture. Jerad

Jerad says. Proof by contradiction is one of my favourite methods by the way. I say, cool common ground lets see what we can do with that If dinosaurs existed at any time they exist "right now" from the perspective of a Timeless observer to the universe. Do you agree or disagree? you say, All my examples exist independently of me. I could die right now and you could still experience them. I say, Same with me. You could imagine what a T-Rex looks like before you even knew that a person called Fifthmonarchyman existed. I'd bet you could even describe it in some detail peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #139

If Platonism or Christian Theism for that mater is true then dinosaurs necessarily exist right now.

That will make filming more Jurassic Park movies easier.

If Platonism is true they exist in the world of the forms if Christian Theism is true they exist in the mind of God

So, you can know some of the mind of God. Where is the world of forms? Do things exist in triplicate?

Since I know for certain that one of those schools of thought is true I can infer with certainty the existence of dinosaurs.

What is your evidence that one of those schools of thought must be true? What if you're being deceived by a mirror universe which is reflecting back your thoughts to you so you think they're true?

I know this by simply following the data where it leads.

I still can't see or experience your cave or dinosaurs. Jerad

Wow Zac, I had no idea that for you the bar was so low for something to count as science. I'm sure that to be considered scientific BA was thinking an observation must at least associated with a theory or hypothesis. It explains a lot to know you think that science equals bare observation. Though if I had to guess I'm sure you would agree with Jerad that only physical observations count. peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #138

Ask yourself what qualifies as evidence to Jerad. I think you will find that in order to qualify as evidence in your view a thing must be in some way physical.

Not at all. Take a look at Goldbach's Conjecture. The concept is abstract and to prove it's not true would just require the presentation of a counter-example. Proof by contradiction is one of my favourite methods by the way. Anyone who takes the time can come to understand the problem and look for an exception. Consider non-Euclidean geometry. We have a very hard time perceiving it but some mathematical spaces can be parsed because we can learn how to follow the axioms. We can all learn how. I happen to like Magritte and Haydn. A lot. They are both considered masters in their fields. And these days you can find most of all their works online. So you too can indulge. The novel The Shadow Cabinet by WT Tyler is a marvellous, non-material construction which I have read multiple times. You can find a used copy on ebay and share it with me. I will rewatch The Prisoner (60s TV show) one of these days. Absolutely brilliant metaphor. Truly astounding. And widely acclaimed. And something anyone can experience.

now ask yourself what evidence you have to support this understanding of “evidence”.

Evidence is something that is observer independent. Not dependent on a person.

Your cave and virtual dinosaurs are just dreams.

what “evidence” do you have for this claim?

You can't impart your experience to me. All my examples exist independently of me. I could die right now and you could still experience them. Jerad

fifthmonarchyman: Do you think that the question of whether dinosaurs existed is a scientific question? If so you have a very broad definition of science IMHO Of course it's a scientific question. Why in Heavens would you think otherwise? fifthmonarchyman: The existence of dinos can be inferred by observation and logic alone no hypotheses no experiment no theory nothing but a man and a fossil. So, your answer is "yes", we have a great deal of certainty concerning the existence of non-avian dinosaurs. This is an historical claim. Dinosaur fossils aren't just rock, but the remains of once living organisms of flesh and blood. Zachriel

Jerad asks, How do you know it exists otherwise? I say, If Platonism or Christian Theism for that mater is true then dinosaurs necessarily exist right now. If Platonism is true they exist in the world of the forms if Christian Theism is true they exist in the mind of God Since I know for certain that one of those schools of thought is true I can infer with certainty the existence of dinosaurs. I know this by simply following the data where it leads. peace fifthmonarchyman

Jerad said, A thought cave and virtual dinosaurs aren’t evidence. I say, Ask yourself what qualifies as evidence to Jerad. I think you will find that in order to qualify as evidence in your view a thing must be in some way physical. now ask yourself what evidence you have to support this understanding of "evidence". you say, Your cave and virtual dinosaurs are just dreams. I say, what "evidence" do you have for this claim? peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #135

Does existence equal useful to Jared in your view? Does the existence of something have to be proven to Jared in order to be actual?

How do you know it exists otherwise? I find lots and lots of abstract, non-physical constructs interesting and useful. Seven for example. Or beauty. Or hyperbolic trig functions. Or Hilbert Space. Or Klein Bottles. Or love. Or imagining what it's like to ride on a beam of light. Or grandeur. Or Zorn's Lemma. Or complex analysis. Or least upper bounds. But these are common shared experiences or represent concepts/models which can be shown to be useful. Your cave and virtual dinosaurs are just dreams. And not everyone's dreams. Just yours perhaps.

“Jared is a materialist so only claims consistent with materialism are valid to Jared”

Nope. But I don't see what use virtual dinosaurs are. And it's Jerad.

If that is your point then fine I already knew that and it conflicts with your other claim about following the evidence where it leads

A thought cave and virtual dinosaurs aren't evidence. Jerad

ba77 #131

Everything is cited in the articles I referenced is to ‘respectable’ (read ‘they conform to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy’) journals. I’m not going to dig the specific cites out for you. You have to do some work on your own!

You've got several things from The Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog which isn't even an academic publication let alone peer reviewed. You've also go some material from Cornelius Hunter's blog. Again, NOT an academic publication.

Evolutionary theory, no matter what evidence may contradict it, can never be ‘on its way out’ because neo-Darwinism is, in reality, a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a real science that is open to falsification:

You've been told many times how evolutionary theory could be falsified; why do you persist in saying things you know aren't true?

Since you are clearly seem not interested in questioning your basic assumption that ‘evolution is true’, no matter what evidence is presented against your belief, Good day sir!

I certainly am willing to question it but I'd like to see some high quality data and publications not a rag-tag bag of blogposts and mis-interpreted papers. Find some repeatable, witness independent results. Lynn Margulis had to do that when she challenged aspects of evolutionary theory. And because she was persistent and right she eventually shifted some paradigms. You gotta get the evidence. Jerad

Jared says, But I don’t see a cave or any dinosaurs. Can’t prove either of those exist now. Can’t prove they don’t exist. They seem to have limited use. I say, Does existence equal useful to Jared in your view? Does the existence of something have to be proven to Jared in order to be actual? I just don't follow your point. It seems to be something like "Jared is a materialist so only claims consistent with materialism are valid to Jared" If that is your point then fine I already knew that and it conflicts with your other claim about following the evidence where it leads Peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #133

I pointed out that such a question only makes sense if you assume materialism from the very outset. If Platonism or something like it is true the dinosaurs were not wiped out they still every much exist literally just outside the cave.

But I don't see a cave or any dinosaurs. Can't prove either of those exist now. Can't prove they don't exist. They seem to have limited use. Jerad

Jared asked I’m not really sure what you’re getting at or what it has to do with the conversation. I reply You wondered why the designer would "create" dinosaurs only to let them be wiped out. I pointed out that such a question only makes sense if you assume materialism from the very outset. If Platonism or something like it is true the dinosaurs were not wiped out they still every much exist literally just outside the cave. peace fifthmonarchyman

Jerad says, Just don’t put words in my mouth or motivations in my ‘soul’. Listen to what I say and not what you think I mean. I say, I can't read your mind I can only assume you are like every other human that has ever walked the earth. Humans don't follow the data wherever it leads if that means giving up all that they hold dear. This has been repeatedly demonstrated both anecdotally and in scientific studies. Perhaps you are the lone exception but I have seen no evidence to that effect. Until I see that evidence if you don't mind I will follow your advice from back in 105 Quote: I’ll just stick with good old fashioned measurable, replicable data. end quote: peace fifthmonarchyman

Everything is cited in the articles I referenced is to 'respectable' (read 'they conform to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy') journals. I'm not going to dig the specific cites out for you. You have to do some work on your own! Evolutionary theory, no matter what evidence may contradict it, can never be 'on its way out' because neo-Darwinism is, in reality, a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a real science that is open to falsification: Since you are clearly seem not interested in questioning your basic assumption that 'evolution is true', no matter what evidence is presented against your belief, Good day sir! fifth, they are all yours, I'm out of here,,, bornagain77

ba77 #121 MOST of what you site are NOT peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. There are a few that were reputable but, while they cast some aspersions on 'the tree of life' analogy (which is a sign that biologists do respond to new data) they most certainly DO NOT cast aspersions on universal common descent via modifications. Evolutionary theory is not on the way out. fifthmonarchyman #122

Dinos existed physically for a time just as we exist physically for a time but the physical is not all there is to existence not even close. If the designer exists outside the universe then Dinos exist physically right now from his perspective You’ve got stop assuming that the shadows in the cave are the reality

I'm not really sure what you're getting at or what it has to do with the conversation.

Are you saying that I can’t make general observations about humanity? You might be the only person that ever existed that will follow the truth even when it means giving up everything they love. But I’ve seen no evidence of that and until I do I will continue to believe that you are like the rest of us in that regard.

Just don't put words in my mouth or motivations in my 'soul'. Listen to what I say and not what you think I mean. Jerad

The term 'dinosaur' was invented to categorize fossils which actually could be considered entirely independent beings, or as with the case of ancestors of birds - they were just birds. Silver Asiatic

Zac, Do you think that the question of whether dinosaurs existed is a scientific question? If so you have a very broad definition of science IMHO The existence of dinos can be inferred by observation and logic alone no hypotheses no experiment no theory nothing but a man and a fossil. If you are claiming that observation plus logic equals science then my observations about Jerad's willingness to follow the evidence is equally scientific. I'm not sure he would like to hear that ;-) peace fifthmonarchyman

bornagain77: playing semantics with ‘hard fossils’ as opposed to ‘hard science’, does not alleviate the fact that you have NO hard ‘observational’ science supporting your claim that unguided material processes can produce functional complexity/information. That's not the question or the claim you made. You had claimed that historical science is a soft science, a colloquial distinction implying less certainty, reiterated in several of your statements above. So again, do we have a great deal of certainty about whether non-avian dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? Zachriel

Zach, playing semantics with 'hard fossils' as opposed to 'hard science', does not alleviate the fact that you have NO hard 'observational' science supporting your claim that unguided material processes can produce functional complexity/information. For you to try to play semantics with the word 'hard' in the context that I had used it shows how intellectually dishonest you are willing to be in regards to dealing forthrightly with the evidence at hand. Good day Sir, I have much better things to do today than waste my time playing your stupid games! bornagain77

Jared says, But, you don’t really know me at all. I say, Are you saying that I can't make general observations about humanity? You might be the only person that ever existed that will follow the truth even when it means giving up everything they love. But I've seen no evidence of that and until I do I will continue to believe that you are like the rest of us in that regard. peace fifthmonarchyman

bornagain77: Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence You didn't answer the question. Are you saying we don’t have "hard" evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex once roamed the Earth? Zachriel

Zach, Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30932397 The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629 bornagain77

"Too bad most of your references are not from peer-reviewed academic papers which have been checked and rechecked for accuracy and properly drawn conclusions." Too bad you are wrong in your claim: Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00 More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors - Cornelius Hunter - June 2014 Excerpt: a new massive (phylogenetic) study shows that not only is the problem (for Darwinists) worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently.,,, "Our results suggest that, for Aves (Birds), discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-fossil-molecule-contradictions-now.html Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Casey Luskin - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: there's almost no dataset that can contradict (falsify) common descent. Every time you find that one trait predicts one phylogeny, and another trait predicts a conflicting phylogeny, you can effect a reconciliation by invoking at will more evolutionary steps of convergent loss or gain of traits, or invoking a host of other ad hoc explanations. In a worst case scenario, if genes were distributed in the most un-treelike manner imaginable, I suppose you could take all the known genes present in the most recent presumed common ancestor of that group, and then simply invoke losses (and gains) of genes to reconcile the observed distribution with a tree. - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/shark_proteins_080781.html Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - February 7, 2014 Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" that "well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance." In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other. Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt - (pp. 122-123) ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren't distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that's used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor. If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/the_ghost_of_te081981.html Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77

Jerad asked, I’d like to know why the designer(s) bothered making all those dinosaurs if the, finely tuned universe was just going to wipe them all out? I respond, I going to assume that was actually a real question as apposed to a rhetorical one nothing ever really dies as long as as it exists in our hearts and minds. Dinos (the Big ones) still exist in the minds of inquisitive 7 year olds ,scientists and the Designer. Dinos existed physically for a time just as we exist physically for a time but the physical is not all there is to existence not even close. If the designer exists outside the universe then Dinos exist physically right now from his perspective You've got stop assuming that the shadows in the cave are the reality Peace fifthmonarchyman

bornagain77: the question not if dinosaurs existed Actually, that was the question. It's an historical question relating to your claim about historical evidence. Are you saying there is no "hard" evidence of their existence? Zachriel

Zach, the question is not if dinosaurs existed, (and I certainly never claimed they did not exist), the question is how did they get there. Darwinists insist, without one shred of empirical support, that the massive amounts of functional complexity/information originated through unguided Darwinian processes. That is not science! bornagain77

ba77 #115

You refer to ‘genome recording’ as supporting your position, yet Genetic evidence is far more problematic than you realize. And I can cite many references more than backing that claim up. ,,, Thus, the question becomes why do you not do science properly and give ‘hard science’ its proper due? I hold that it is because you find the implications of Design, for whatever severely misguided reason, philosophically untenable.

Too bad most of your references are not from peer-reviewed academic papers which have been checked and rechecked for accuracy and properly drawn conclusions. I give time to all kinds of science. They all have their truths to expose. And they can cross-support each other. Physics and chemistry and biology and mathematics and archaeology and anthropology are not mutely exclusive or contradictory. Jerad

fifthmonarchyman #112

My worldview holds that you will follow the data right up to the point that doing so becomes suffecitenly uncomfortable for you. Then you ignore it or you will find excuses and rationalizations to go your own way.

But, you don't really know me at all.

I know that is what you believe but I disagree and the evidence from the study of human behavior would tend to support my conclusion

But, you don't really know me at all or how I got to the place where I am now. You don't know what my 'journey' was.

I would argue that what you mean by “realistic” is actually something more like “comfortable”.

But, you don't really know the hurts I've suffered or the pain I rise above.

I mean no offense by this and it is nothing personal. I honestly believe this could be said for anyone including me. I just believe we would all be better served if we were at least honest with our motivations and ourselves.

I am very honest with myself and others. I'll not take it personally but you are just projecting your worldview and biases onto me. Jerad

bornagain77: All historical science is a soft science because you cannot do a lab experiment on what happened in the past. fifthmonarchyman: Dinosaurs still roam the earth it’s just that we like to call them birds. Sure. It should have been clear we were referring to non-avian dinosaurs, but we'll be more specific. Are you saying we don’t have hard evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex once roamed the Earth? Zachriel

Jerad, anyone who elevates what he imagines historical science to be telling him over what our present observational evidence is telling us is 'not doing science properly'. And when our present, repeatable, observational science is given its proper priority over soft historical science (i.e. presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question, which is the method of science that Darwin himself used), then the inference to Intelligent Design is, by far, the best inference to explain what we can make out of the past. (Cambrian Explosion, etc..). You refer to 'genome recording' as supporting your position, yet Genetic evidence is far more problematic than you realize. And I can cite many references more than backing that claim up. ,,, Thus, the question becomes why do you not do science properly and give 'hard science' its proper due? I hold that it is because you find the implications of Design, for whatever severely misguided reason, philosophically untenable. The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ bornagain77

Zach #111 I'd like to know why the designer(s) bothered making all those dinosaurs if the finely tuned universe was just going to wipe them all out? Maybe the designer(s) decided to go with the soft and cuddly mammals instead of the scaly scary dinos in the end. Oh wait, the weren't scaly,they had feathers . . . or did they? There was no one around then to see it so it's just just so stories really I guess. But I do hope the designer(s) don't get tired of us. There's lots of ways the universe can kill us and most of them are pretty nasty. Since we have free will maybe we should just do it ourselves and get it over with. Except that 'suicide' is bad or wrong. Is perpetrating global warming suicidal? It's all so confusing. Jerad

Zac said, Are you saying we don't have hard evidence that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? I say, Have you missed the latest? Dinosaurs still roam the earth it's just that we like to call them birds. peace fifthmonarchyman

Jared said, I have not yet completely made up my mind. Except to do my best to follow all the data as the path becomes clear. I say, My worldview holds that you will follow the data right up to the point that doing so becomes suffecitenly uncomfortable for you. Then you ignore it or you will find excuses and rationalizations to go your own way. You say, I am open to new destinations as long as they really do exist. I say, I know that is what you believe but I disagree and the evidence from the study of human behavior would tend to support my conclusion You say, Life may be the journey and not the conclusion but I prefer to be realistic about where I’m going. I say, I would argue that what you mean by "realistic" is actually something more like "comfortable". I mean no offense by this and it is nothing personal. I honestly believe this could be said for anyone including me. I just believe we would all be better served if we were at least honest with our motivations and ourselves. peace fifthmonarchyman

bornagain77: All historical science is a soft science because you cannot do a lab experiment on what happened in the past. Are you saying we don't have hard evidence that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? http://www.dinosaurfact.net/backgrounds/n4-1920-1080.jpg Zachriel

ba77 #107 As your statement is easily spotted above I shan't reproduce it here. Your view of historical sciences is not shared by a majority of scientists.. Certainly some methods of historical sciences differ from non-historic sciences but even physics sometimes has to look for traces from the past. Or are you saying The Big Bang is just idle speculation? I think you'll find that the methods of evolution, archaeology, anthropology, etc are fairly rigorous when used properly. Or are you casting aspersions on everything that happened before . . . what time exactly? How or why you conclude I have not one drop of hard science is curious. And your inference in that matter is incorrect. And I (and a lot of others) think your interpretation of the 'hard' science data is incorrect regarding its support of evolutionary theory. In fact many 'hard' science results, such as genome recording, have made the case for evolution even stronger. Remember to that when the theory was first proposed Darwin and Wallace had no idea the mechanisms of inheritance. And yet the theory is now stronger because of the new 'hard' science techniques and insights. The gaps are getting smaller and smaller. And the biologists have only 'been at it' for 150 years. I've been hearing people say that evolution is on its last legs for years now. And yet it still hasn't crumbled or gone away. Jerad

Silver Asiatic: Again, a chance process usually produces predictably dull results. "Chance process" is a misnomer. Chaos, order, complexity are the norm for natural processes. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman #106

The wishful thinking comes in the leap from that tentative conclusion (a) to inference …. (b)Therefore decent with modification can produce a mind that can fathom the Fibonacci sequence. The point is you can’t get from point (a)to point(b) with out something added to the mix.

Well, I fail to see any compelling evidence that any other thing or one was involved. Or was necessary.

Mathematicians do use the term transcendental but not in this way. I don’t know what you mean by it.

I mean pretty much what Mathematicians do. Mathematicians did not event the term by the way they borrowed it from philosophers

In mathematics a transcendental number is "a real or complex number that is not algebraic—that is, it is not a root of a non-zero polynomial equation with rational coefficients." (from Wikipedia) It was coined by Liebniz. sqrt(2) is irrational but algebraic (it's the root of x^2 - 2 = 0) so not transcendental. Pi is transcendental. I don't think you use it in the same way as mathematicians do.

I’m a Calvinist. I believe we have both already pitched our tents a long time ago and it will take something beyond us to change our minds now. I enjoy these conversations for one main reason I like thinking about this stuff. It almost feels like worship to contemplate and try and explain the wonder of existence to someone who seems to have forgotten that there is more going on than can be “measured and replicated”.

I have not yet completely made up my mind. Except to do my best to follow all the data as the path becomes clear. I am open to new destinations as long as they really do exist. Life may be the journey and not the conclusion but I prefer to be realistic about where I'm going. Jerad

The Cambrian Explosion by itself turns Darwin’s tree of life upside-down. The fossil record after the Cambrian Explosion is also infamous for being a record of ‘top down’ sudden appearance and stasis. ,,, And besides Neo-Darwinists having a grossly inadequate mechanism with random variation and selection, the genetic evidence is far more problematic than you seem to realize. Cladistics is joke of a ‘science’ that assumes into its premises the very conclusion of common descent that it is trying to prove. Darwinists are also infamous for massaging the data in genetics to try to force the evidence into a tree like pattern. All historical science is a soft science because you cannot do a lab experiment on what happened in the past. i.e. You are forced to 'infer' what might have happened in the past. Hard science on the other hand, which you have not one drop of, is observational, repeatable, testing in the present. (In fact Quantum mechanics is infamous for making of mockery of the space-time reference frame),,,, ALL observational, repeatable, testing tells us that unguided neo-Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate for the creation of even trivial levels of the extremely integrated levels of functional complexity/information we find in life. Yet, as fifth points out, mind can easily grasp the world of information. For you to give prejudicial favor to the 'soft historical evidence', which is far more problematic than you seem to realize, over what our present laboratory experiments is telling us is possible, is 'not even wrong' as far as doing science properly is concerned. bornagain77

Jerad said, I don’t think the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic lines of evidence which establish that humans arose through a process of universal common descent with modification is silly wishful thinking. I say, The wishful thinking comes in the leap from that tentative conclusion (a) to inference .... (b)Therefore decent with modification can produce a mind that can fathom the Fibonacci sequence. The point is you can't get from point (a)to point(b) with out something added to the mix. You say Mathematicians do use the term transcendental but not in this way. I don’t know what you mean by it. I say, I mean pretty much what Mathematicians do. Mathematicians did not event the term by the way they borrowed it from philosophers you say, Well, if you’ve already made up your mind why are we having this conversation? You said you were glad to see that I was willing to consider some things yet you’ve already pitched your tent. I say, I'm a Calvinist. I believe we have both already pitched our tents a long time ago and it will take something beyond us to change our minds now. I enjoy these conversations for one main reason I like thinking about this stuff. It almost feels like worship to contemplate and try and explain the wonder of existence to someone who seems to have forgotten that there is more going on than can be "measured and replicated". Peace fifthmonarchyman

ba77 #104 "soft 'historical' evidence" How are fossils soft historical evidence? How is genomic analysis soft historical evidence? And the clear morphological data? What about the non-uniform geographic distribution of various clades? Most importantly, what do you get when you combine all the data together? Do you have an explanation that is consistent with ALL the data? Not just the parts you want to focus on. Most of the links you post are from people who are committed to Biblical world view. Do you think, maybe, that affects their analysis? Anyway, over 150 years of research and data and the case for evolution is getting stronger and more detailed every day. I'm not dodging anything. I'm accepting the evidence. Jerad

No, you dodged the hard observational evidence I presented and tried to hide in your soft 'historical' evidence. as to your claimed evidence,,, let's just say that you have been suckered big time shall we? The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve – Robert Carter – 2014 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_nMuq_lH4 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/slate-makes-fun-of-americans-who-doubt-darwin/#comment-534978 podcast: On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-12-05T17_06_16-08_00 Casey Luskin speaking at a recent Science and Human Origins conference. Casey discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from ape-like precursors. bornagain77

ba77 #96 I don't think I dodged. I think I disagreed with your view. 5thmonarchyman #102

No offense but this sounds a lot like a small child reasoning that because given a short running start a cow can sometimes jump a fence then there no contradiction in assuming that given a large running start the cow can jump the moon. It’s just silly wishful thinking.

I don't think the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic lines of evidence which establish that humans arose through a process of universal common descent with modification is silly wishful thinking.

The reality is evolution is just an algorithm. Because the Fibonacci sequence is transcendental it can not be arrived at comprehensibly by algorithmic means. Evolution might get close but will always fall short of the Ideal.

Mathematicians do use the term transcendental but not in this way. I don't know what you mean by it.

Yet the Ideal sequence exists in it’s fullness both in our minds and objectively outside the cave.

So, you're a Platonist?

There is no “well examined, non-contradictory line of evidence” that will ever be able to bridge the gulf between those two facts. Just like there is no well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that point to a cow being able to jump the moon

Well, if you've already made up your mind why are we having this conversation? You said you were glad to see that I was willing to consider some things yet you've already pitched your tent.

Just a moment of honest reflection should reveal this to you.

What can I say? I see things differently.

There is nothing special about my “game/experiment” but what it does is help to demonstrate in case we have forgotten just how big the gulf between the shadows and the reality is.

Okay.

It would be cool to hear you say you will think about these things.

I'm trying but I'm not really sure what you are saying. There's a 'reality' that isn't what we see, feel, taste, measure, share, document and share? Where does this reality exist?

However I don’t think that this sort of thing is something you will discover on your own even with deep thought. I think it’s something that needs to be revealed to you and that is above my pay grade.

Whatever that means. Until/if that happens I'll just stick with good old fashioned measurable, replicable data. Jerad

Jerad said, Well there are several well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that all point to that having happened. I say, No offense but this sounds a lot like a small child reasoning that because given a short running start a cow can sometimes jump a fence then there no contradiction in assuming that given a large running start the cow can jump the moon. It's just silly wishful thinking. The reality is evolution is just an algorithm. Because the Fibonacci sequence is transcendental it can not be arrived at comprehensibly by algorithmic means. Evolution might get close but will always fall short of the Ideal. Yet the Ideal sequence exists in it's fullness both in our minds and objectively outside the cave. There is no "well examined, non-contradictory line of evidence" that will ever be able to bridge the gulf between those two facts. Just like there is no well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that point to a cow being able to jump the moon Just a moment of honest reflection should reveal this to you. There is nothing special about my "game/experiment" but what it does is help to demonstrate in case we have forgotten just how big the gulf between the shadows and the reality is. You say. What do you want me to say? I say It would be cool to hear you say you will think about these things. However I don't think that this sort of thing is something you will discover on your own even with deep thought. I think it's something that needs to be revealed to you and that is above my pay grade. peace fifthmonarchyman

Quote of note from your linked article ppolish: Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter - January 7, 2010 Excerpt: For these interactions we found a series (scale) of resonant notes: The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618…, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture." Radu Coldea is convinced that this is no coincidence. "It reflects a beautiful property of the quantum system -- a hidden symmetry. Actually quite a special one called E8 by mathematicians, and this is its first observation in a material," he explains. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm bornagain77

And going up from the micro scale of the quantum world to the macro scale of galaxies we find an 'Invisible Hand" Milky Way - image http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/milky_way.jpg As to what is sculpting the Milky Way into its spiral shape??? Scientific American refers to the 'Invisible Hand' of Dark Energy (which is fine tuned to within 1 part to 10^120). The Universe's Invisible Hand - Christopher J. Conselice - 4 August 2014 Dark energy does more than hurry along the expansion of the universe. It also has a stranglehold on the shape and spacing of galaxies Excerpt: it now appears that dark energy may be the key link among several aspects of galaxy and cluster formation that not long ago appeared unrelated. The reason is that the formation and evolution of these systems is partially driven by interactions and mergers between galaxies, which in turn may have been driven strongly by dark energy. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v23/n3s/full/scientificamericanuniverse0814-60.html And the other 'invisible hand' of dark matter is also involved in the scuplting of the Milkiy Way: Galaxies Excerpt: Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is typical: it has hundreds of billions of stars, enough gas and dust to make billions more stars, and at least ten times as much dark matter as all the stars and gas put together. http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-are-galaxies/ Table 2.1 – Hugh Ross – Why The Universe Is The Way It Is Inventory of All the Stuff That Makes Up the Universe (Visible vs. Invisible) Dark Energy - 72.1% Exotic Dark Matter - 23.3% Ordinary Dark Matter - 4.35% Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) - 0.27% Planets - 0.0001% Invisible portion - Universe - 99.73% Visible portion - Universe - .27% bornagain77

C'mon Wd400, you can find this stuff yourself. It's a mountain for crying out loud. Waaaaa - that is me crying out loud btw. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm ppolish

This "Scientific Mountain of Evidence", would you mind pointing it out? wd400

If parts of Nature followed the Golden Ratio exactly to 5 decimal places - that would NOT be guided, it would be a Law like Gravity. A lemmings trajectory off a cliff is NOT guided evolution. But the Scientific Mountain of Evidence shows parts of Nature being pulled, guided, pushed towards the Golden Ratio. It it were one example, one could argue luck. Many examples = Guided. Unguided Purposeless Random = Fail. ppolish

Jerad, dodge noted and ignored! bornagain77

Silver Asiatic #86

Let’s put it this way, you don’t have an answer for the origin of those mathematical rules, so why not consider that there might be a source for those “underlying structures or principles” which is as beautiful (or moreso) as what we observe?

I'll consider anything for which there is credible evidence. I'm sorry to say but I don't see there being a source or an intelligence behind it all. bornagain77 #87

Perhaps by pointing out those ‘non-contradictory lines of evidence’ that show us, with no ‘just so story telling’, exactly how mathematical reasoning came about by unguided Darwinian processes.

I was speaking of the fossil, genomic, morphologica and bio-geographic records. AND no independent evidence of some kind of intelligence or designer. Sorry folks, that's the way I see it. I think this is actually off-topic for this thread so I won't dwell on it. I know that I will be vilified because I can not produce highly specific explanations for how this or that came to be. BUT can anyone else do better? Can the ID community be that specific themselves? I have yet to hear such an explanation. So, please, do not shove a double standard in my face. If your standard is to elucidate every single detail then don't claim to have a better explanation unless you can explain all the evidence. bornagain77 #94 What wd400 is saying is that almost all of the 'examples' of the golden ration in nature are not really true. This is not denying 'the evidence', this is examining claims of evidence to see if they are valid. BA77 do you accept every claim by every Tom, Dick and Harry that they have spoken to God and that God told them to do this or that? I should hope not. You have to critically examine the claims and decide to reject or accept them. Sadly most of the Golden Ratio claims are not up to scrutiny. Jerad

wd400, in your rush to deny any and all evidence for any design and/or beauty in the universe, you are failing to see the bigger picture. Much like the people in the following video who were too busy to take notice of the exceptional beauty in their midst:

Stop and Hear the Music – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw an apt verse? Psalm 46:10 He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;

wd400, perhaps you have been brainwashed by Darwinian apologetics so much, and are so concerned with 'winning the argument', that you do not realize what you are actually doing.,,,

The Artists - The Artists is a short film about two rival painters who fail to see the bigger picture. http://vimeo.com/33670490

,,,But what you are doing wd400 is not presenting any actual scientific evidence that unguided random processes can produce so many uncanny, and beautiful, instances of the golden ratio in the universe. No you have not done that in the least save for vague allusions,,,, despite the fact that you insist unguided processes produce the 'appearance of golden ratios'. What you have done instead wd400 is argue that since the golden ratios are not 'perfect' instances of the golden ratio then 'God would not have done it that way'! Yet, that is a Theistic argument wd400! A Theistic argument built upon your atheistic presuppositions as to what God should and should not do!,,, Darwin used this Theological argument from imperfection/evil in "Origin of Species", and Darwinists to this day still use this argument, (instead of ever presenting any real world evidence that unguided processes can build the unfathomed functional complexity we see in life).

Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

Moreover wd400, as fifth pointed out, your whole argument depends on the fact that perfection exists somewhere in your mind. But the question arises, 'From whence do you get this idea of perfection so as to argue that the world is imperfect?'

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

wd400, your whole argument depends on some transcendent idea you have about perfection being true. But materialists deny the reality of the transcedent realm to the point of denying they even have a mind! Moreover, where we do find a very close approximation to 'perfection of form' in the universe (which apparently is your gold standard for allowing you to infer whether God or not God was in this instance of the golden ratio), we find that that 'perfection of form' leads us to infer that God designed the universe for life. As mentioned in post 11, the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is found to be exceptionally round. And as I also pointed out in post 12, atheists have failed miserably as to explaining why the CBR is exceptionally round. Moreover, whereas materialism had failed, not only to predict the beginning for the universe, but also that it might be 'round', Theism had predicted not only a beginning for the universe but also predicted that the universe is 'round':

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, Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

Yet, besides the Cosmic Background Radiation, there are two other surprising places in the universe where 'exceptional roundness' is found:

Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists - (Aug. 16, 2012) — Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm

and also this 'exceptional roundness':

Bucky Balls - Andy Gion Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,, http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm

Thus wd400, if 'perfection of form' is what it takes for you to concede that God is real then do those examples of 'exceptional form' suffice for you? If not, why not? What would it take for you to admit that God is real? Fred Hoyle himself, (1915-2001), converted from staunch atheism into being a Theist/Deist after discovering the precise balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated this:

"I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars." Sir Fred Hoyle - "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12

Hoyle also stated

From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? ... I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. - Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.

Verse and Music:

Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk

bornagain77

I'm saying the golden ratio doesn't appear very often in nature, and the best real example (the laves/seeds) can be explained simply without any external guidance. wd400

WD, the main thing I'm having trouble grasping is your opinion. You're saying Nature is guided sometimes? Or 100% unguided purposeless? It is one or the other. You seem to be waffling. ppolish

Why do you have such a difficult time in grasping this. There are few examples of Fibbonacci sequences and golden ratios in nature. The best one is the packing of leaves or seeds, but as the Vi Hart video explains, that requires no magic (just that plants take on an adaptive trait, that isn't too hard to find given the way plants develop leaf-buds). On the other hand, there are loons who see the golden ratio everywhere. But there are millions of lengths and rectangles and spirals in nature. Of course some of them will aproximate the golden ratio, just like some will have a ratio that's close to the numerical value of e, sqrt(2), pi, Eulers constant or an other point of the number line. If someone wants to make something of the appearance of the golden ratio in nature it's really up to them to prove the number comes up frequently and consistently. The most frequently cited cases don't fit the bill, so we are left with the people trying to claim cosmic significance for the occurrence of phi unable to show any interesting examples of the number's occurrence in nature. Is that clear enough? wd400

It would be a very dull artist who painted all his paintings to the same exact mathematical standards to which he constructed his easel(s) with. It would be worse art critic who expected him to do as such. Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/ Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by 'Dark Energy', that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses: Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture http://gaowsh.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-29-at-5-09-50-pm-2.jpg Here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant): Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) - 2002 Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,," "A external agent [external to time and space] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own.,,," Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant". http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially." Nobel Prize winning Physicist Charles Townes bornagain77

wd400, are you arguing that the Golden Ratio appears in nature more as a Brownish Ratio? Or are you arguing any appearance of Ratio is just an imaginary appearance? ppolish

sa,

LOL. Yes, big surprise! Suddenly, materialists become obsessively interested in decimal point measures in spirals. I wonder why

It's not about the 8th decimal. Look at the comonly cited examples: A turn of DNA (not within on d.p) Nautilis shell (not within one d.p.) Hurricanes (vary greatly) Sspiral galaxies (vary greatly) Sea shells (vary greatly) Sex ratio in a beehive (vary greatly) Ratios of human body proprtions (vary greatly, most of the means aren't close). So, again, you seem to making a great deal our of phenomenon you can't actually show exists to any great degree. wd400

As to Fifth's succinct comment,,,

One way to think about my “experiment” is to contemplate this.. Materialism claims that an algorithm (evolution) that is unable to duplicate the Fibonacci sequence precisely produced a mind that can not only imagine the sequence but can discern exactly where the “shadows” fall short of the ideal. How is that even logically possible?

,,,Jerad replies,,,

Well there are several well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that all point to that having happened. What do you want me to say?

Perhaps by pointing out those 'non-contradictory lines of evidence' that show us, with no 'just so story telling', exactly how mathematical reasoning came about by unguided Darwinian processes. Wallace himself, co-discoverer of natural selection, who had far more field work than Darwin did, said,,,

"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russel Wallace - An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.

In fact, a tantalizing clue that we are made in God's image is our extremely unique ability to process information. In fact the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the ability to process information, is the very first thing to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic, that is found to be foundational to life:

Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

As well, information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality itself:

"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—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 all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) 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/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf Conversations with William Dembski--The Thesis of Being as Communion - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI

If that is not 'non-contradictory evidence' that we were made in the image of God to have a eternal relationship with him, which is something to 'make you want to applaud with joy', then nothing is: Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Third Day - Show Me Your Glory Opening Lyric: I caught a glimpse of Your splendor In the corner of my eye The most beautiful thing I've ever seen And it was like a flash of lightning Reflected off the sky And I know I'll never be the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LeXVt_5jE8

bornagain77

Jerad

The basic building blocks seem to follow another set of rules that underlies everything.

Agreed - the rules that underlie things give us those mathematical symmetries and beautiful combinations and patterns, etc.

I don’t know that they had to ‘come’ from somewhere at all.

Since they might not have existed, or they could have been entirely different (not creating mathematical patterns), we look for the origin.

I’m not a multiverse believer (although if the data starts accumulating then I’ll change my mind) so I can’t fall back on the ‘that’s just the way things are in THIS universe’ argument.

That sounds good to me, although it does sound like you're saying 'that's just the way things are, period'.

Again I would tend to think that the most basic rules and laws have to do with the way the universe is structured.

Yes, but again - origins. The structure is shaped by the rules. The building blocks combine because there are rules, and those rules create amazingly beautiful things. I'm just suggesting that the rules have an origin - and of course, many have seen it that way. If you're open to that possibility then its something worth thinking about. Let's put it this way, you don't have an answer for the origin of those mathematical rules, so why not consider that there might be a source for those "underlying structures or principles" which is as beautiful (or moreso) as what we observe? Zachriel

Many such patterns are the result of discrete processes interacting with continuous space. So, Fibonacci represents a packing of discrete objects, such as flower petals, in geometric space.

True, but the reason people find these patterns beautiful and fascinating is because they show balance, harmony, symmetry and order. When we see similar patterns shaped by natural processes it causes some people (I would say "many") to wonder about the origin and source of that beauty. Again, a chance process usually produces predictably dull results. Silver Asiatic

Zach #84

Many such patterns are the result of discrete processes interacting with continuous space. So, Fibonacci represents a packing of discrete objects, such as flower petals, in geometric space. While a Zen Buddhist might say it’s the mind that divides the universe between this-and-that, it’s a pretty clear observation that we can distinguish objects, even if they sometimes have fuzzy edges.

Yes, I do find such things fascinating. Things like Fourier analysis just make you want to applaud with joy. I went through phases in my academic career where I was or was not interested in purely abstract mathematics. It sort of depended on what I was taking. Statistics I found messy and fussy so longed for some real life examples. Same with Linear Algebra. Calculus, for some reason I didn't mind the abstract parts. And Number Theory . . . sigh. That is just pretty, pretty stuff. I don't think I have/had the mind for it but it was sure lovely to look at. Sadly, math is not a spectator sport. If you can't 'do' it you gotta find an applied field. Jerad

Jerad: I think patterns are reflections or manifestations of underlying structures or principles. Many such patterns are the result of discrete processes interacting with continuous space. So, Fibonacci represents a packing of discrete objects, such as flower petals, in geometric space. While a Zen Buddhist might say it's the mind that divides the universe between this-and-that, it's a pretty clear observation that we can distinguish objects, even if they sometimes have fuzzy edges. Zachriel

fifthmonarchyman #71

One way to think about my “experiment” is to contemplate this.. Materialism claims that an algorithm (evolution) that is unable to duplicate the Fibonacci sequence precisely produced a mind that can not only imagine the sequence but can discern exactly where the “shadows” fall short of the ideal. How is that even logically possible?

Well there are several well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that all point to that having happened. What do you want me to say? Silver Asiatic #76

Logically, we should have a problem with this. 1. We look for the origin of things. Where did those rules come from? First there was no rules, then there were rules. 2. You say “combining building blocks” but the building blocks correspond to the rules, they couldn’t create the rules. The “combining” is done mathematically, as with the golden ratio (or other interesting patterns). It’s the fine-tuning argument.

I probably should have been a bit clearer in my discussion. I think some of the rules/patterns fall out because of the way the basic building blocks can be combined and put together. The Periodic chart is a good example of this. The prime numbers are another. The basic building blocks seem to follow another set of rules that underlies everything. I don't know that they had to 'come' from somewhere at all. I'm not a multiverse believer (although if the data starts accumulating then I'll change my mind) so I can't fall back on the 'that's just the way things are in THIS universe' argument. Again I would tend to think that the most basic rules and laws have to do with the way the universe is structured. But I'm also happy to say I don't know until we gain more insight. I don't feel the need to come to a conclusion yet. Silver Asiatic #80

In this case, you’re offering just a chance origin for, what I consider, some wonderfully beautiful symmetries in nature. I just don’t see that as reasonable, in my opinion.

I think patterns are reflections or manifestations of underlying structures or principles. I don't think the underlying principles and structures are random, chaotic or arrived at by chance. I think that somehow the nature of the universe is reflected in what we experience. And I think it's wondrous and beautiful when you get close to understanding even a fraction of a glimpse of one of the great, deep truths. Jerad

Clouds communicated information to the rain drops and directed them to land in that puddle.

Interesting to note that IDers are moving away from probability to information. Dembski effect ? I hope the Signal to Noise ratio was optimal and the cloud didn't get confused. Me_Think

Silver Asiatic: louds communicated information to the rain drops and directed them to land in that puddle. That's interesting, but not sure how you would quantify it. On the other hand, there is a staggeringly close statistical fit between the puddle and the hole. Zachriel

Jerad #57

Now, is that some great cosmic design or is that just the way the dice fall?

You do seem to be open to possibilities and that is good to see. Are these mathematical patterns just the way the dice fall? Just some random combination that popped up somehow? I guess we'd have to take a look at randomness and chaos, if possible, and see what it produces. It's the difference between chaotic-disorder and harmonic order. As I see it, the dice don't fall in a way that makes me wonder. What comes up is just random numbers with a rare, lucky combination or streak, but nothing more.

Check out your own beliefs. What are your leanings? Towards ‘this was designed’ or ‘this arises from the basic structure’. And THEN . . . try and prove your belief.

I check out my beliefs just about every day here at UD - mainly by considering my opponents views. What are they really saying? I'm open to the arguments that are given here. In this case, you're offering just a chance origin for, what I consider, some wonderfully beautiful symmetries in nature. I just don't see that as reasonable, in my opinion. Silver Asiatic

Zachriel - of course. Clouds communicated information to the rain drops and directed them to land in that puddle. Just like genetic information does in a cellular process. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: It’s nothing more than a “pattern”. Like a mud puddle. The puddle fits the hole "staggeringly well". The hole must have been made for the puddle. Zachriel

Fifth,,, As to Plato, Lewis, and Kepler, might as well throw Plantinga's work in there too since it is related: Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439 Fifth, I love how your quote boiled all that (Plato, Lewis, Kepler, Plantinga, etc. etc..), down to one sentence and one question. Hope you don't mind if I 'borrow it' for future reference. bornagain77

Jerad

Why does there have to be an ‘origin’? What if the rules just arise from the act of combining the basic building blocks of the universe?

To follow up on fifthmonarchyman's good comments ... Logically, we should have a problem with this. 1. We look for the origin of things. Where did those rules come from? First there was no rules, then there were rules. 2. You say "combining building blocks" but the building blocks correspond to the rules, they couldn't create the rules. The "combining" is done mathematically, as with the golden ratio (or other interesting patterns). It's the fine-tuning argument. Silver Asiatic

ppolish 65

Google “Golden Ratio in nature bogus” and you’ll find a bunch of materialists discussing decimal points. Wow, what a suprise. Can’t let guidance get a foot in the door.

LOL. Yes, big surprise! Suddenly, materialists become obsessively interested in decimal point measures in spirals. I wonder why. :-) Nothing special here at all folks! Just one more example of the bleak dullness that blind, unintelligent natural forces produce. And look - there's a variance of .0001% here. It's nothing more than a "pattern". Like a mud puddle. Fibonacci sequences don't exist in nature, and when they do, they just "arise", of course. No big deal. All these people who actually find beauty and harmony in nature are deceived by mysticism. Nature is actually boring and ugly if you really take the time to learn about it. Ahh, the wonders of materialism. :-) Silver Asiatic

Very good comments from several people in this thread,,,, fifthmonarchyman as to,,

"Materialism claims that an algorithm (evolution) that is unable to duplicate the Fibonacci sequence precisely produced a mind that can not only imagine the sequence but can discern exactly where the “shadows” fall short of the ideal. How is that even logically possible?"

Very nicely, and succintly, put! Sort of like Plato's cave, Lewis's moral dilemma, and Kepler's 'shared geometry' all rolled into one:

Plato - The Allegory of the Cave - (The Matrix) Animated - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQfRdl3GTw4 Image: Plato’s Cave of shadow shows projected before life-long prisoners and confused for reality. Once the concept of general delusion is introduced, it raises the question of an infinite regress of delusions. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/plato_cave.gif “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler

on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler is said to have declared these very 'unscientific' thoughts:

‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’

bornagain77

ppolish 62

WD, you asked for “where” and I gave you examples. http://io9.com/5985588/15-unca.....-in-nature

From that site:

...appears in petals on account of the ideal packing arrangement as selected by Darwinian processes

They're the result of Darwinian processes ... so they really do exist in nature now! And they're a perfect example of how evolution just does amazing things. :-) Silver Asiatic

instead of trying to google up links that defend your position, just try and learn something

Don't google "Golden Spirals in Nature" because everything on the web, (including articles from Science magazines) about that topic is wrong? I guess we have to try and learn something without reading anything on the internet ... except what we read here on UD. ??? Silver Asiatic

Hey Jerad, Sorry, If we are going to interact I need to offer a blanket comprehensive apology for my tendency to misspell typo and use poor grammar. Think of me as living proof that the semi-literate can also participate in civil society :-) you say, I was suggesting that if someone has some special data or insight then they should present it so the rest of us can see what it’s about. I say, One way to think about my "experiment" is to contemplate this.. Materialism claims that an algorithm (evolution) that is unable to duplicate the Fibonacci sequence precisely produced a mind that can not only imagine the sequence but can discern exactly where the "shadows" fall short of the ideal. How is that even logically possible? peace fifthmonarchyman

fifthmonarchyman #64

Jarred says

It's Jerad actually.

I’m not sure if you’ve heard about my little algorithm experiment. I don’t want to derail this cool thread with mundane details but the jest is you don’t have to wait on others to present their results you can do some science for yourself.

Nope, I haven't heard about your algorithm experiment. I was suggesting that if someone has some special data or insight then they should present it so the rest of us can see what it's about. Of course I can do my own work, which I have done many times. But I can't see into someone else's mind or know what data they have collected. Jerad

Unguided purposeless random must be very lonely.

Yes, unlike ID agents who had a conference in Silicon valley to chart out designs and working of trillions of biological processes and structures, and are even now engaged in managing the trillions of process by unknown mechanism from unknown multiple locations around the universe or multiverse from nth spacial dimension. Me_Think

Thanks Wd400. Using that video for guidance, I can draw plants more realistically. Good design rule. Lots of design rules in nature, but the Golden Ratio is extra neat. Fractals in Nature are cool too. Unguided purposeless random must be very lonely. ppolish

fifthmonarchyman as to:

"Matter does not make rules. Matter is governed by rules."

Very well put. Indeed one of the main falsification criteria for Intelligent Design, from David Abel's list, is that materialists/atheists demonstrate that unguided material processes can generate ANY mathematical logic whatsoever:

Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation by Unguided Material Processes) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming etc.. etc.. of related note: "To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!” ? Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

And there is very good reason to believe that mathematics will never arise from unguided material processes. Berlinski puts the situation for materialists/atheists like this:

An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html

It is also interesting to note that the matter-energy of this universe is not governed merely by 'regular' math, but is governed by 'higher dimensional' math. In fact, ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate the 4-D spacetime of General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;

The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann https://vimeo.com/98188985 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

It is also interesting to note that higher dimensions, such as these higher dimensions from which our universe arises and upon which it is sustained, would be invisible to our 3-Dimensional sight:

Dr Quantum Flatland - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6206QWGh3s

Verse:

2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

In fact. the processes of our own physical/material bodies or governed higher dimensional mathematical principles:

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf

With apologies to C.S. Lewis,,,

If I find in myself a desire 4 dimensional quarter power scaling which no experience 3-Dimensional materialistic process in this world can satisfy explain, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”)

It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: "I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven." Barbara Springer - Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - video https://vimeo.com/79072924

Verse and Music:

John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? Brooke Fraser - CS Lewis song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PycBrNP8dXg

Of supplemental note: The following site is of related interest to the topic:

The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white The preceding interactive graph and video points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;

bornagain77

For anyone that is genuinely interesting in the golden ratio in nature, Vi Hart has a great video on the best real example, the packing of leaves/seeds in plants wd400

Google "Golden Ratio in nature bogus" and you'll find a bunch of materialists discussing decimal points. Wow, what a suprise. Can't let guidance get a foot in the door. But the guidance is real WD, and they're spectacular:) ppolish

Jarred says But you’ve got to present your data/results so we can all ‘get’ it. I say, I'm not sure if you've heard about my little algorithm experiment. I don't want to derail this cool thread with mundane details but the jest is you don't have to wait on others to present their results you can do some science for yourself. Peace fifthmonarchyman

Ppolish, instead of trying to google up links that defend your position, just try and learn something. Most of those examples are, again, just untrue. wd400

WD, you asked for "where" and I gave you examples. http://io9.com/5985588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature Only one missing is a spinning picture shouting "No No No NOOOO". That is a private joke between me and poster Ringo sorry. ppolish

Jared says, Why does there have to be an ‘origin’? What if the rules just arise from the act of combining the basic building blocks of the universe? I say, I'm not sure how chaos can combine into anything without rules to guide it. That sort of thing just does not make sense to me. Mater does not make rules. Matter is governed by rules. There is a school of thought however that the very "rule(s)" itself are/is personal and contains within itself all that is necessary to bring about the basic building blocks of the universe. In the Beginning was the Logos and in him was light and life etc..... peace fifthmonarchyman

ppolish #56

Disagree there. Nature is guided sometimes by the Golden Ratio. Mountains of scientific evidence.

Then go out and find the data, measure it, record it, bring it back. Science is egalitarian. If you make the measurements you will get the recognition. fifthmonarchyman #58

The whole point is that the forms transcend the cave yet still influence the shape of the shadows they cast

Look, you might be right. I'll do my best to stay open to the possibility. But you've got to present your data/results so we can all 'get' it. Take some time, write it all down, Get some people to look at it to see if you've missed something, Make sure it's all coherent and consistent. And then tell us about it. Fair enough? Jerad

Where in Nature, Wd400? Google “Golden Ratio in Nature” for plenty of examples.

Yeah, I can google just fine. Lot's of pictures of nautilus shells, which aren't within one decimal place of being golden spirals. It's possible you might want to dig a little deeper. wd400

Wd400 said Seriously, SA, if you want to make something of the golden ratio in nature then you are going to have to point to examples of it existing in nature. I say, The ratio exists outside the cave like all Platonic forms. It's a special kind of poverty to stare at the shadows and somehow conclude that there is no reality in the shapes they approximate. The forms don't exist "physically" in the cave. To do so would be to constrain themselves to the merely materiel. The whole point is that the forms transcend the cave yet still influence the shape of the shadows they cast peace fifthmonarchyman

Silver Asiastic #46

What is the origin of the rules that create such symmetry and beauty with such simple and elegant mathematics? Something more harmonious and beautiful?

Why does there have to be an 'origin'? What if the rules just arise from the act of combining the basic building blocks of the universe? Why can't that be the case? Consider my example of all the primes (except for the bad boys 2 and 3) being +1 or -1 from a multiple of 6. At first glance that doesn't sound right at all. That's too easy. But it is true. Check it out. Now, is that some great cosmic design or is that just the way the dice fall? Check out your own beliefs. What are your leanings? Towards 'this was designed' or 'this arises from the basic structure'. And THEN . . . try and prove your belief. Jerad

Where in Nature, Wd400? Google "Golden Ratio in Nature" for plenty of examples. "That's not a Golden Ratio to 7 decimal places". True, general guidance not strict 7 decimal place guidance. "That's not guidance, that's oops." "That's not guidance, thats inevitable. Like a rock falling due to gravity." Disagree there. Nature is guided sometimes by the Golden Ratio. Mountains of scientific evidence. ppolish

Silver Asiatic #52

Ok, but would you be open to the idea that mathematical rules don’t just arise from matter and energy?

Make your case and I will do my best to consider it with an open mind. Jerad

Silver Asiatic #51

I was referring to #38 where I quoted you:

Ah yea, got it now. Okay here's the rant/diatribe: I hear a lot of people say that atheists have go no feeling in their life, no meaning, no moral grounding. No bottom. In my experience this is just not the case. All the atheists I have known are terribly thankful for the time they have on earth, want very much to leave the planet in a better state than when they entered it, try very hard to understand other points of views, really, really love the natural world, really, really love poetry, cinema, drama, music, literature . . . Where does this notion that atheists/materiallists are boring, dull, machine-like beings come from? They love poetry, drama, music, theatre, whatever just as much as you do. Why would you assume otherwise? Unless you looked at them as being limited in some way. Flawed. Lesser. IF so then whose bias is that? If none of this applies to you, please pass on and ignore. I am finding it surprisingly difficult to prove that people who don't believe in God can still see beauty and passion and truth in the world. Jerad

Seriously, SA, if you want to make something of the golden ratio in nature then you are going to have to point to examples of it existing in nature. I don't know how I could say that more plainly. wd400

Jerad

My opinion: they arise from the universe being built with a basic set of building blocks. So certainly patterns are bound to arise.

Ok, but would you be open to the idea that mathematical rules don't just arise from matter and energy? Silver Asiatic

Jerad #48 I was referring to #38 where I quoted you: Jerad:

I’d like to add that I think this notion that rationalists and materialists have no poetry in their soul is complete rubbish.

I also asked you a question before that, but it's ok if you don't want to answer. Silver Asiatic

wd400

Folks keep saying this, but they can’t poitn to any, so I’m a little confused.

I'm a little confused also because you said, recently:

The other point is that most of the example of golden ratios/spirals just aren’t true — galaxies spirals aren’t golden, nor are nautilisues or the overwhelmeing majority of snail shells (I guess by chance some are close), most flowers don’t have Fibonacci numbers of petals.

You might have meant "all" rather than "most" because otherwise you said that "some flowers have Fibonacci numbers of petals", etc. As for your claim that "some snails are close", I could ask "which snails are you talking about"? But since you already explained yourself to mean ("but with > 60 000 species one of them must grow at someting like the rate required to generate it") individual snails, then I wouldn't ask you to go out and find them. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the pattern because it doesn't conform with mathematical precision (and yet state some are "close").

The only really good ones I know are packing of seeds and leaves, but there is not magic there, so I’m a little confused to why people are trying to make so much and of something that can’t actually point to.

If you're saying that there's really nothing to appreciate about these mathematical patterns in nature then I'm not convinced. At the same time, I understand what you're getting at and why you're arguing this way. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic #46

What is the origin of the rules that create such symmetry and beauty with such simple and elegant mathematics? Something more harmonious and beautiful?

My opinion: they arise from the universe being built with a basic set of building blocks. So certainly patterns are bound to arise. What kind of analogy can I present .. . . Okay, how about this: every prime number (after 2 and 3 which are not nice and don't play well) is either +1 or -1 from a multiple of 6. This is easily verifiable as true but it feels too pat too . . . easy. How can one of the most intractable mathematical sequences, the primes, still be bound by this simple rule. But they are because of the way the natural numbers are 'made'. Jerad

Silver Asiatic #41

If you’d like to try to convince me that there’s nothing of beauty in this, or nothing to generate awe and wonder, I’m open to what you have to say. But I’m afraid you’d only be supporting the notion that Jerad claimed was “complete rubbish”.

Without trawling back through all the previous posts to be sure I'm sure which post SA is referring to can I just say that: Some of the claims about the golden ratio being present in this or that structure are rubbish. Or are extremely generous interpretations of the sites. The important point here must surely be: did the architects of those sites intend to represent the golden ratio in their constructions? If We're not sure then we can not say yes. Yet. Always stay open to new data. But, it is the case that some of the Fibonacci numbers do occur in nature. No ambiguity. No question. I think this is an indication that nature is built upon a set number of basic building blocks and therefore it's reasonable to expect some patterns to occur. No one understands it all yet but I'm enjoying the journey of discovery. As should we all. We live in very interesting times. We should be very, very appreciative of that fact. Jerad

Nature shows spiral patterns in many forms and many of these conform to the golden spiral. Folks keep saying this, but they can't poitn to any, so I'm a little confused. The only really good ones I know are packing of seeds and leaves, but there is not magic there, so I'm a little confused to why people are trying to make so much and of something that can't actually point to. wd400

Jerad 40 You're asking great questions. I hope you're willing to be open to ideas that are very much connected to them.

Is there a meta-pattern above?

What is the origin of the rules that create such symmetry and beauty with such simple and elegant mathematics? Something more harmonious and beautiful? Silver Asiatic

wd400

I agree the series are beautiful ...

I'm glad to agree with you.

Where in nature?

You've already admitted that they are found in nature so I'm sure you're not giving me this loaded question to argue that they don't exist. Nature shows spiral patterns in many forms and many of these conform to the golden spiral. If you're saying, as with your example of snails, that the spirals often don't conform with exact mathematical precision to the golden spiral, I'd wonder more about why you'd make that kind of response than I would about the correctness of it. It seems that you're reacting to something, rather than expressing some admiration for the beauty you recognize (which Jerad did more openly). Silver Asiatic

Where is nature being guided be the golden ratio? wd400

WD, Nature is being guided by Laws like the Golden Ratio. Does not have to be "mystical" guidance, just non-material guidance. ppolish

Where in nature? I agree the series are beautiful, I'm taking about the claim they are in spiral galaxies and shells and all that... that's mostly mysticism. wd400

What marvels are there in relation the golden ratio in nature, SA?

I would guess that from your perspective there are none - right? From my perspective, the beauty and mathematical symmetry of these sequences, found in different aspects of nature are a marvel to observe and consider. What is the origin of the golden ratio? Fibonacci drew his own conclusions as did other mathematicians like him. I'll suggest that a lot of people today think the same thing. You could try Googling 'fibonacci' 'marvel', for example, and see what people have to say about it? If you'd like to try to convince me that there's nothing of beauty in this, or nothing to generate awe and wonder, I'm open to what you have to say. But I'm afraid you'd only be supporting the notion that Jerad claimed was "complete rubbish". Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic #38

So, it’s interesting, but not really. Make sure to dismiss any of the marvels we actually observe. “By chance snails are close” but there’s nothing poetic or beautiful here, or at least nothing worth talking about.

I'm not going to put words into anyone else's mouth but I do think the study of nature and the finding of mathematical structures therein is beautiful and wondrous. But I do agree that much of the golden ratio searching is pseudo-mathematics. Just like the guys who say they can read Pi in the Egyptian pyramids to some stupid amount of decimal places.

Zachriel added something similar:

Fibonacci shows up because it represents optimal spiral packing, either for space or for contact.

Nothing to admire or appreciate here at all, apparently. Fibonacci just “shows up”. Nature needed something “optimal” so there it is. No big deal.

But he is right! And figuring that out is a fabulous stroll through a mathematical landscape!! For me nature is grand and glorious and, for some reason, it abides by certain rules and exhibits patterns. It's hard to explain the pleasure and joy of chasing down those patterns and rules. I look at the world as being a magical manifestation of a surprisingly small number of 'rules' and 'laws'. The fact that there's so much 'play' in the system, that so much can come of what may only be a handful of particles and principles is mind-boggling and awesome. How lucky are we to be alive and to be able to, even in a small way, come to terms with and understand some of that underlying structure? We are so lucky and so fortunate. On my very bad, worst days I still (fortunately) am able to look around and see so much to love and learn and appreciate. The number of spirals on a pine cone turn out to be a Fibonacci number!! And that's a pattern. It doesn't mean (to me) that there's a design behind it. Don't say it is the meaning, it is just a pattern. But it does mean I have reached out and touched a (very small) truth of this universe. How amazing is that? The pattern isn't the story. The story is getting deeper into the universe. And figuring out why the patterns occur. Is there a pattern to the patterns? Can we quantify it? Can we use this pattern to understand other patterns? Can two patterns be explained by the same rule? Is there a meta-pattern above? Are the patterns simple and elegant or messy and difficult? so much beauty, so little time . . . . Jerad

What marvels are there in relation the golden ratio in nature, SA? BTW, i don't know of any snails that are close to the golden spiral, but with > 60 000 species one of them is must grow at someting like the rate required to generate it. That's all I meant by "Some must be close" to a golden spiral. wd400

The exchange between BA77 and Jerad was one of the more interesting things I've read here - thanks to both. I liked Jerad's expression that the sequences are "spooky" - that signified some admiration and wonder about them. Jerad's later comments were similar and surprising, from what I had read elsewhere. So that was good.

Jerad: What makes you think I’m an atheist anyway?

Are you a theist? Jerad:I’d like to add that I think this notion that rationalists and materialists have no poetry in their soul is complete rubbish. He said, just before wd400 added ...

wd400 Sequences and series and number theory are interesting, but most of the golden ratio stuff is numerology.

So, it's interesting, but not really. Make sure to dismiss any of the marvels we actually observe. "By chance snails are close" but there's nothing poetic or beautiful here, or at least nothing worth talking about. Zachriel added something similar:

Fibonacci shows up because it represents optimal spiral packing, either for space or for contact.

Nothing to admire or appreciate here at all, apparently. Fibonacci just "shows up". Nature needed something "optimal" so there it is. No big deal. Silver Asiatic

ppolish #36

BTW, I don’t know how the calculation of Golden Ratio is done for music, but it would not suprise me it was part of M.Ronson’s guitar playing in the Rebel Rebel link I posted. Supposedly his best guitar playing there;)

:-) Don't ask me, my wife is the Bowie fan. I'm a Who-man. In fact I saw The Who live at Leeds a couple of nights ago. Fab-u-lous. One of the best concerts I've been to. Ever. No question. Jerad

BTW, I don't know how the calculation of Golden Ratio is done for music, but it would not suprise me it was part of M.Ronson's guitar playing in the Rebel Rebel link I posted. Supposedly his best guitar playing there;) ppolish

ppolish #34

Jared, my son used to be my daughter:0 Maybe us bringing her to a Bowie Concert while in the womb played a part. Gene Genie Genes?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH :-) (That's appreciative laughter for the joke in case anyone would prefer to think I"m being dismissive.) Now I AM going to have put on Cha-cha-cha-changes. :-) I just dropped my son off at Cadet training. I"ve got some paradigm shifting of my own to start!! Jerad

Jared, my son used to be my daughter:0 Maybe us bringing her to a Bowie Concert while in the womb played a part. Gene Genie Genes? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U16Xg_rQZkA ppolish

ppolish #32

Jerad, I’m not complaining and I’m not hating. Just explaining that it’s easy to lose patience. Sometimes losing patience helps everyone involved.

That is true!! Sometimes I do that with my son in hopes he actually listens!! Jerad

Jerad, I'm not complaining and I'm not hating. Just explaining that it's easy to lose patience. Sometimes losing patience helps everyone involved. ppolish

ppolish #28

Unappreciative spoiled children. Take Take Take. Take everything for granted until pain. Then they complain the loudest. “It’s not fair waa!”

I'm not sure who you are referring to but those sentiments definitely do not apply to any of my atheist or Christian friends (yes, I have quite a few). I find that people with a certain level of intelligence take nothing for granted, work hard, believe in and support laws and rules and do their very best to not complain unless they have a very, very good case. Perhaps you should try getting to know some of the people you are complaining about and not just react through a stereotype? Jerad

BA77 #26 I didn't say you hated atheists but you did say:

despite all the flowery language atheists try to pour on their Nihilistic worldview, at rock bottom in atheism, there is no real reason, no beauty, for why anything happens in the universe.

Which is not very understanding or true. Which is why I think you haven't really got to know any atheists.

I simply pointed out the incoherence of atheism.

I would NEVER EVER tell a person of faith on this forum that their beliefs were incoherent because I think that's unecessarily rude and definitely OFF THE POINT. Jerad

BA77 #26 I didn't say you hated atheists but you did say:

despite all the flowery language atheists try to pour on their Nihilistic worldview, at rock bottom in atheism, there is no real reason, no beauty, for why anything happens in the universe.

Which is not very understanding or true. Which is why I think you haven't really got to know any atheists.

I simply pointed out the incoherence of atheism.

I would NEVER EVER tell a person of faith on this forum that their beliefs were incoherent because I think that's unecessarily rude and definitely OFF THE POINT. Jerad

Unappreciative spoiled children. Take Take Take. Take everything for granted until pain. Then they complain the loudest. "It's not fair waa!" There were plenty of unbelievers during the time of Fibonacci. History has forgotten most of them. Fibonacci knew their was a purposeful God. He knew there was rhyme and reason in the Universe. He described the rhyme and reason. "Something from nothing". Thanks Larry. "Something from everything" Thanks Lenny. C'mon Larry. C'mon Lenny. Think rhyme and reason. Take your ideas to the next level. Think the Old One. Think Mind in the Matrix. Do some great Science. ppolish

BA77 #23

MMM Jerad, I’m not the one saying that atheists have no soul, THEY ARE!…

Not the way I was using the word soul.

Moreover, I don’t deny that gifted mathematicians use a sense of beauty,,, but the argument from beauty is a Theistic argument:

What? Please try and stay on topic. Was I making an argument from beauty? No. Was I invoking beauty as an explanation of anything? No. Was I appreciating the beauty in the universe some of which is enhanced with a deep and abiding understanding of mathematics? YES!! Sometimes I feel that you really cannot see the world from any perspective other than your own. You seem to have these trigger words and phrases which prompt you to find one of your quote-ladened text blasts. Try just talking and listening to the real people on the other side of the conversation. Jerad

I don't 'hate atheists' and I certainly don't hate gay people since my little brother, whom I love dearly, is one. I simply pointed out the incoherence of atheism. ,,, Anyways, since you are now falsely accusing me of being hateful towards people I am not hateful towards, instead of being honest to the evidence, I'll rest my case,, the last word belongs to you. bornagain77

wd400 #21

The other point is that most of the example of golden ratios/spirals just aren’t true — galaxies spirals aren’t golden, nor are nautilisues or the overwhelmeing majority of snail shells (I guess by chance some are close), most flowers don’t have Fibonacci numbers of petals. So the list goes. Sequencs and series and number theory are interesting, but most of the golden ratio stuff is numerology.

I was going to make that point but, as you can see, I get accused of raining on lots of parades already. Jerad

BA77 #22

i.e. and yet it is the atheist who originally stated ‘‘It’s just patterns’, and now tries to cover it up!,,

I'm not trying to cover anything up. They're beautiful, amazingly, lovely patterns. But they are NOT love or wisdom or that feeling you get when you first set eyes on your child. What makes you think I'm an atheist anyway?

and why should the atheist not state ‘its just patterns’??? despite all the flowery language atheists try to pour on their Nihilistic worldview, at rock bottom in atheism, there is no real reason, no beauty, for why anything happens in the universe. Everything is just a big cosmic accident. The atheists, will always insist at rock bottom that everything ‘just happened’.

What is your problem with atheists? Do they threaten you in some way? Do you think, like KF, that they are tearing down the fabric of civilisation? Have you even bothered to read the replies various atheists have given to your contention that they see no beauty in the world? You ask that they consider your point of view, maybe not agree with it but listen and try to understand. And yet you act like atheists are somehow lesser beings. Have you really ever talked to one, got to know them, saw the beauty and love and desire in their soul? Actually, you probably have but you didn't know it. Just like gay people, there's a lot more around than you think. Jerad

Jerad as to "I’d like to add that I think this notion that rationalists and materialists have no poetry in their soul is complete rubbish." MMM Jerad, I'm not the one saying that atheists have no soul, THEY ARE!... Moreover, I don't deny that gifted mathematicians use a sense of beauty,,, but the argument from beauty is a Theistic argument: Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God: Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml Though the following article is somewhat technical, it is almost comical to read how every approach, in which the materialists tried to reduce the subjective sense of beauty to a mere material mechanism, was thwarted. Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t070321.html ++++++++++++++ Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty - video (28:12 minute mark - prediction of the 'anti-electron') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40 "It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty" Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One: (page 201) http://books.google.com/books?id=9nRGwQnvGx0C&pg=PA201 Of related interest to ‘mathematical beauty’ guiding discovery is the discovery of the Amplituhedron: The Amplituhedron (21:12 minute mark) - Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272 But where this ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics seems to break down is with string theory, and m-theory: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/cosmology/inside-the-higgs-boson-discovery/#comment-510807 bornagain77

i.e. and yet it is the atheist who originally stated '‘It’s just patterns’, and now tries to cover it up!,, and why should atheists not state 'its just patterns'??? despite all the flowery language atheists try to pour on their Nihilistic worldview, at rock bottom in atheism, there is no real reason, no beauty, for why anything happens in the universe. Everything is just a big cosmic accident. The atheists, will always insist at rock bottom that everything 'just happened'. of note As to having an adequate causal explanation:

A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf

C.S. Lewis humorously stated the point like this:

"to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen" - CS Lewis

The following ‘doodle video' is also excellent for getting this point across:

“In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.” C.S. Lewis - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk Can Law Make Worlds? - Joshua Youngkin July 2, 2012 Excerpt: Filippenko apparently wants a first cause of some sort, but not a personal first cause, not a mind, not an agent. So he subtly turns physical law into a mind-independent reality, something that is self-sufficiently "there" at the beginning, something that can thus be filled with world-creating agency and power. But what would you call "law" that lives nowhere in particular yet could of its own accord decide when, where and how to apply itself? In seeking to identify such a strange power, the one name we cannot give it is "law." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/can_law_make_wo061551.html

In other words, law or necessity does not have causal adequacy within itself. i.e. Law is not a ‘mechanism’ that has ever ’caused’ anything to happen in the universe but is merely a description of a law-like regularity within the universe. The early Christian founders of modern science understood this sharp distinction between law and lawgiver quite well,,,

Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – John Lennox – 2012 Excerpt: God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.,,, C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/

Perhaps the most famous confusion of a mathematical description of a law and the causal agency behind the law is Stephen Hawking’s following statement:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,” Stephen Hawking http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Here is an excerpt of an article, (that is well worth reading in full), in which Dr. Gordon exposes Stephen Hawking’s delusion for thinking that mathematical description and agent causality are the same thing.

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

bornagain77

The other point is that most of the example of golden ratios/spirals just aren't true -- galaxies spirals aren't golden, nor are nautilisues or the overwhelmeing majority of snail shells (I guess by chance some are close), most flowers don't have Fibonacci numbers of petals. So the list goes. Sequencs and series and number theory are interesting, but most of the golden ratio stuff is numerology. wd400

Me_Think #19

Circle can be squared in non-Euclidean space.

Speaking of prettiness . . . BA77 did you know that some of Escher's prints can be looked at as representations of non-Euclidean space? He is by far the favourite artist of mathematicians although I'm partial to Raphael and Elizabeth Vigee LeBrun myself. Magritte is wonderful too. And Durer. And Duchamp. And . . . but I digress. (Favourite composer: Haydn.) I'd like to add that I think this notion that rationalists and materialists have no poetry in their soul is complete rubbish. All the PhDs in mathematics I've known well throughout the years have loved music, films, nature, art, science. One of my favourite professors could quote huge passages of William Blake. In fact, I would bet that a lot more mathematicians know a lot about art than artists know about mathematics. Jerad

bornagain77 Circle can be squared in non-Euclidean space. Me_Think

Zach #16

Fibonacci shows up because it represents optimal spiral packing, either for space or for contact.

C'mon Zach, gotta leave some things for the reader to discover!! I'm also always curious to see who actually bothers to look things up and learn something instead of just re-iterating stuff they read in some non-mathematical book. It is creepy that the spirals on a pine cone are adjacent Fibonacci numbers. That still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. How can a problem about rabbits give that? One of my favourite tricks is to show how you can get them from Pascal's triangle, already one of the coolest elementary mathematical structures. I love sequences and series. Sigh. Jerad

bornagain77: This failure of materialism to be able to explain ‘form’ is made clear in the paradox of ‘squaring the circle’ It's not a paradox, but what turns out to be unsolvable problem in (compass-and-straightedge) construction. As the geometer his mind applies To square the circle, nor for all his wit Finds the right formula, howe'er he tries — Dante Zachriel

Jerad: (I find the Fibonacci numbers to be much spookier and they do crop up, not approximations but the actual numbers.) Fibonacci shows up because it represents optimal spiral packing, either for space or for contact. Zachriel

BA77 #11

Jerad, do you know why this beautiful pattern/form should turn up in so many diverse places in the universe?

I have some ideas, yes. But I've not done any research on it. Others have though. Why do you think it appears to appear so often? (I find the Fibonacci numbers to be much spookier and they do crop up, not approximations but the actual numbers.)

,,, Your complacent “It’s just patterns” remark does not get us one inch closer to scientifically explaining why these beautiful patterns should appear is so many diverse places in the universe! In fact the whole complacent ‘it just happens’ attitude you exhibit goes a long way towards explaining why there were no atheists at the founding of modern science, i.e. Just Imagine if Kepler were an atheist instead of a Christian,,, “why do the planets orbit as they do Kepler?”,, Kepler as an atheist answers,, “It just happens!”., Not productive is it?,, Thus where is your sense of wonder at the beauty of it all Jerad? Why not ask “From whence do all these beautiful forms come?”:

I am very interested in pursuing the explanations of these phenomena but I do not think to ascribe them to some grand designer who left them lying about as clues. I think the patterns arise because of the nature of the building blocks of nature. There are lots and lots of other patterns as well. In fact, one could argue, that mathematics and some sciences are elaborate forms of pattern recognition and definition.

If you were to honestly ask deeper questions Jerad, you would find that the materialistic worldview simply has no coherent explanation as to explaining why any objects may have any particular ‘form’. This failure of materialism to be able to explain ‘form’ is made clear in the paradox of ‘squaring the circle’. ,,,, There is a circle-square, synthesis-analysis, paradox, (squaring the circle), in which it is found that ‘the whole’ cannot be reduced to the parts:

Well, I disagree. I think an objective, value-free approach to studying the universe in all its beauty is the right way to find out what makes it tick. I think any preconceived notions you have runs the risk of closing your mind to some explanations that run counter to your beliefs. Why did the church fight the notion that the earth was not the centre of the universe? The evidence was there but bias prevented some from seeing the truth. Like I said, I find the Fibonacci numbers fascinating and wonderful to play with. There used to be a whole journal dedicated to them. (I think it still exists actually.) But they're not signs of a divine presence or attention. Prime numbers are another one of my favs but again . . . they don't impart any morals or ethics or human values. They are exceptionally pretty though. Squaring the circle refers to an old challenge to find a square the same area as a given circle using only a compass and a straight edge. There were many, many such construction challenges and figuring out which ones were 'do-able' and which ones weren't pointed out some unexpected limits in our mathematical systems. Gauss famously figured out a way to construct a regular, 17-sided polygon using a straight edge and compass which is why it's engraved on his tomb stone. Nothing to do with sums and parts. Jerad

of supplemental note: Kurt Godel was well aware of the Theistic implications of his incompleteness theorem as the following quotes make clear:

Quotes by Kurt Godel: "The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit." [6.1.19] "Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts." [6.1.21] "I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical." [6.2.12] "The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live,,,." "Materialism is false." quotes taken from - Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996 http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine" ~ Kurt Gödel Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video https://vimeo.com/92387854 As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” Kurt Gödel

bornagain77

podcast - Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution - September 17, 2014 "We are talking about 1/3 of the proteins in our body, (could be Intrinsically Disordered Proteins)" - Jonathan Wells http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2014/09/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/ Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbott - November 2010 Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – Cornelius Hunter - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM Timelapse Video Reveals Electric Face in Embryonic Tadpole - July 2011 Excerpt: "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo. We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper." http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/timelapse-video-reveals-electric-face-in-embryonic-tadpole-718111 Not in the Genes: Embryonic Electric Fields - Jonathan Wells - December 2011 Excerpt: although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels -- which determines the form of the endogenous electric field -- constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/not_in_the_gene054071.html

Of related interest to the irreducible 'electric fields' and symmetrical 'form' of an organism:

Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Quote from preceding video: 'I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And 'it' was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.' - Vicky Noratuk

Verses and Music:

Psalm 139:15-16 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. John 11:11-14 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." The disciples then said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, Wake Me O Lord! - Inspirational Poem - music video Evanescence - Bring Me To Life - Lyric: ‘Only You are the living among the dead” http://vimeo.com/38692431

bornagain77

Materialists have tried to explain why the Cosmic Background Radiation forms an 'almost' perfect sphere by appealing to inflation. In fact materialists recently thought they had evidence for inflation with the preliminary BICEP2 findings. Materialists were embarrassed when the BICEP2 findings were, in fairly quick order after BICEP2, found to be severely wanting.

Cosmic smash-up: BICEP2?s big bang discovery getting dusted by new satellite data - Joel Achenbach September 22, 2014 Excerpt: Here’s Paul Steinhardt, a Princeton professor who helped invent inflationary cosmology but later turned against the theory, saying that it does not make testable predictions and is thus not truly scientific (I had asked him this morning, “what’s the headline here?”): "Planck is publishing their second official analysis of dust in recent months – the first specifically excluded the BICEP2 and other high altitude regions and the second (this one) specifically includes it. So, the new Planck satellite paper makes certain and more precise the earlier data and suspicions suggesting that dust contributes a lot of B-mode to the BICEP2 region specifically and that claims of primordial gravitational waves were premature. In sum, thus far: Dust, Not Gravitational Waves,,," http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/09/22/planck-satellite-shows-bicep2-telescope-make-have-seen-dust-not-the-big-bang/?hpid=z5

In the following interview, Steinhardt clearly explained why inflation is 'not even wrong' as an explanation for why the universe is "surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed",,,

Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. "So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing," he says. "I think it's telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it's going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn't." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00

This failure of materialism to be able to explain the 'form' of, not only the universe itself but, any symmetrical object (such as a golden ratio) in the universe by appealling to the parts of the form should not be surprising to anyone who is familiar with Godel's infamous Incompleteness Theorem,,,

Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853 Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#

As Godel proved, not only is the circle of the universe itself in need of an explanation, but anything within the unverse, any particle that you can draw a circle around in the universe and count, is also incomplete and in need of an explanation for its existence. This 'incompleteness' proof of Godel's for material particles is now empirically verified by quantun non-locality.

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger - video http://vimeo.com/34168474

i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time. But to get back to symmetrical 'form',,,, This failure of 'bottom up' materialistic causes to be able to give an adequate explanation for symmetrical 'form' is perhaps most vividly illustrated by why happens to an organism upon the death of an organism:

The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

Moreover, this failure of materialism to be able to explain the symmetrical 'form' of an organism occurs at a very low level in biology. Materialism cannot even give an adequate account for why DNA and Proteins take the forms they do:

The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, (intrinsically disoredered proteins), taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html

bornagain77

Jerad as to your dismissive remark,,,

'It’s just patterns',,,

Ahhh now Jerad, just a complacent, dismissive, yawn from you at the wonder all this? ,,but just look at how beautiful these golden ratio patterns are that are found throughout the universe!

google images for 'golden ratio in nature' https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+ratio+in+nature&client=firefox-a&hs=DFr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=IkeAVJ7FCpOAygSQsILoBA&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=611

and this beautiful pattern is pervasive:

Do We Live in a "Golden Ratio" Universe? - December 2, 2014 *The curl of an elephant tusk *The shape of a kudu's horn *Hurricane spirals *The distribution of planets in the solar system *A biological species constant, T *The spiral structure of the cochlea ear-bone in a fossil hominin *The logarithmic spirals of galaxies *The structure of DNA *The growth of many plants (phyllotaxis) *The Periodic Table of the Elements *Spiral shells of certain mollusks, like snails *Spiral shells of living and extinct ammonites *Stress patterns in nanomaterials *The stability of atomic nuclides *The topology of space-time http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/do_we_live_in_a091611.html

I was particularly struck by the beauty of the golden ratio pattern in the following video and picture:

Nature by Numbers – The Fingerprint of God – video https://vimeo.com/9953368 Cross section of DNA compared to the Rose window at York Minster (the largest gothic cathedral in northern Europe) - picture https://reflectionsfrommyporchswing.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/dna-2.jpg ,,, a cross-sectional view from the top of the DNA double helix forms a decagon: A decagon is in essence two pentagons, with one rotated by 36 degrees from the other, so each spiral of the double helix must trace out the shape of a pentagon. The ratio of the diagonal of a pentagon to its side is Phi to 1. So, no matter which way you look at it, even in its smallest element, DNA, and life, is constructed using phi and the golden section! http://www.goldennumber.net/dna/

Jerad, do you know why this beautiful pattern/form should turn up in so many diverse places in the universe?,,, Your complacent "It's just patterns" remark does not get us one inch closer to scientifically explaining why these beautiful patterns should appear is so many diverse places in the universe! In fact the whole complacent 'it just happens' attitude you exhibit goes a long way towards explaining why there were no atheists at the founding of modern science, i.e. Just Imagine if Kepler were an atheist instead of a Christian,,, "why do the planets orbit as they do Kepler?",, Kepler as an atheist answers,, "It just happens!"., Not productive is it?,, Thus where is your sense of wonder at the beauty of it all Jerad? Why not ask "From whence do all these beautiful forms come?": If you were to honestly ask deeper questions Jerad, you would find that the materialistic worldview simply has no coherent explanation as to explaining why any objects may have any particular 'form'. This failure of materialism to be able to explain 'form' is made clear in the paradox of 'squaring the circle'. ,,,, There is a circle-square, synthesis-analysis, paradox, (squaring the circle), in which it is found that 'the whole' cannot be reduced to the parts:

Synthesis versus Analysis - niwrad - August 2014 Excerpt: “the principle of a thing is neither in one of its parts nor in the sum of its parts, but where all its parts are a unity without composition.” Therefore any science entirely and uniquely based on analysis (of parts) will never reach the ultimate meanings or principles of things (or explain why they take the particular symmetrical ‘form’ that they do):,,, Consider a circle and, inside it, a set of evenly-spaced orthogonal lines describing squares with equal side. If you sum the area of all squares you obtain an imprecise value of the circle’s area. If you thicken the orthogonal lines by decreasing the square’s side and sum their areas you get a better measure. You can iterate this analytic process ad libitum (obtaining always better approximations) but you will never get the exact circle’s area,,, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/synthesis-versus-analysis/

i.e. The symmetrical 'form' of a circle can never be explained by appealing to the 'parts' of a circle no matter how small you may make the parts of a circle in order to try to explain the circle's form.,, A person is ultimately forced to appeal to something outside the circle in order to explain why the circle takes the form that it does. This failure of materialism to explain 'form' is clearly illustrated in the failure of materialists to explain exactly why the Cosmic Background Radiation is as round, (and as flat), as it is.,,, The Cosmic Background Radiation left over from the creation of the universe forms an 'almost' perfect sphere around the earth,,,

The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe at the 3:36 minute mark in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U Here is a still shot of the image at the 3:36 minute mark of the preceding video Picture of CMBR http://new-universe.org/zenphoto/albums/Chapter4/Illustrations/Abrams47.jpg The Cosmic Background Radiation Excerpt: These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation. The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform.,,, the discovery of small deviations from smoothness (anisotopies) in the cosmic microwave background is welcome, for it provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe. However, as we shall see, we are still far from a quantitative understanding of how this came to be. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

bornagain77

ppolish #8

My previous post was sarcastic, Jared, but I assume you’re being serious with the “just patterns”. Let me guess, you had a biology class after algebra? Appearance of design lol;)

I know a bit about the appearance of the Fibonacci numbers in nature. And I know that if you take successive ratios of one Fibonacci number to the previous number the ratio gets closer and closer to the 'golden' ratio. Which is pretty cool. I know how to find the Fibonacci numbers in Pascal's triangle. I know how to use the Fibonacci numbers to create a logarithmic spiral. You can find out about all this stuff and a lot more on Wikipedia. It's fun. Jerad

Human beings are just certain combinations of molecules. Evolution does things all the time. Silver Asiatic

My previous post was sarcastic, Jared, but I assume you're being serious with the "just patterns". Let me guess, you had a biology class after algebra? Appearance of design lol;) ppolish

This thread is like being in a high school math class when the teacher introduces the golden ratio, Pascal's triangle and the Fibonacci sequence. But, I promise you. All this has been known and explored before. It's just patterns. Really cool patterns I'll grant you. But nothing to sell the farm over. Jerad

Golden Ratio in the genome is old news. Evolutionists have known that for a long time. Darwin didn't, but Evolution Theory today is so beyond Darwin. So. Anyway, Golden Ratio in genome is only APPEARANCE of Design. It had to be SOME ratio after all. Golden by unguided process. Purposeless golden. Should call it Beige Ratio really. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11538-007-9261-6 ppolish

What does this actually have to do with the multiverse theory?

Looking for the chemical/physical origin. Silver Asiatic

Design? Chance? Chance only if there are a zillion universes that don’t have anything like this. So the evidence for their existence is… ? Uh, right.

Sometimes reading News posts is like playing catchphrase bingo. What does this actually have to do with the multiverse theory? Is there an underlying argument, or just trying to relate this material to your pet peeves?

Chances are, today’s art establishment won’t take the golden ratio seriously unless it helps chimps fling poop at each other. That’s art too, didn’t you know? Well, it will be if some project gets funded.

Not very good chances. The golden ratio is taken quite seriously in art today. I'm a semi-serious amateur photographer, and the GR is quite common in high-end photography. You'll find it in all sorts of visual arts as a framing device and compositional tool. Apparently in music, too, according to your own posts on the subject. Learned Hand

Fibonacci Sequence in Music - original theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOwMDO0-zBw bornagain77

There's loads and loads of mathematical material on The Golden Ratio. It's been taken 'seriously' for hundreds of years!! My favourite is how it turns up in the Fibonacci sequence. Jerad

It was nice music but still just a riff. that is just repeating a thought expressed by the human use of tones of voice. music is just mimicing human tones of voice. it only has meaning because it does this. otherwise its unorganized noise. remember what herbert spencer said. he was on it despite being comrades with dArwin. Robert Byers