Golden ratio in guitar solos?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 2, 2014

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Golden rectangle/Ahrecht (Original), Pbroks13, Joo

Further to Does the golden ratio, 1.618, unify science?

A reader kindly writes to say that his high school guitar teacher told him that one can find the golden ratio in guitar solos that sneak into songs:

Golden section and golden rectangles, the harmonic series and the model of its ideal behavior simplified, equal temperament and just intonation and a description of the beat frequency conflict produced by the deviations between simultaneous sounding of harmonic partials and prime frequencies and how it affects the tone and timbre of the guitar. Read to the end for some cool videos demonstrating the properties detailed here.

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.

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.

See also: The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion

and

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

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_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

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 peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

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_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

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 peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

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_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

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 peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

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_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

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? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

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 Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

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_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

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_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

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 peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 8, 2014
December
12
Dec
8
08
2014
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

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? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #223 We'll talk tomorrow then. Got the email.Jerad_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Jerad Let me know if you got the email. We'll discuss as you get the hang of itfifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

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 peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

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. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

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? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

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. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

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. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

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_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

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 Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 7, 2014
December
12
Dec
7
07
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply