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

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

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? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

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_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

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 plantswd400_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

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. Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

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..... peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply