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

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/inside-the-higgs-boson-discovery/#comment-510807bornagain77_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 Circle can be squared in non-Euclidean space.Me_Think_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

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 — DanteZachriel_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

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_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Human beings are just certain combinations of molecules. Evolution does things all the time.Silver Asiatic_{December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

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_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

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_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

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%2Fs11538-007-9261-6ppolish_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

What does this actually have to do with the multiverse theory?
Looking for the chemical/physical origin.Silver Asiatic_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

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_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Fibonacci Sequence in Music - original theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOwMDO0-zBwbornagain77_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

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_{December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

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_{December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply