Spiritual and mathematical aspects of seeds

[HamdenRice]

<I originally posted this as a response in the Neural Buddhism thread. It is somewhat off topic from the main topic in that thread, and thought that others might be interested in it. It is a response to The Casual Observer's point about seeds, and is a reflection about what we do and don't know about plants in general and seeds in particular work.>

I was having a conversation with a professor of medicine about this topic. As a bit of explanation, I have to explain that she has a very unusual background. She is both a clinician and a professor of medicine, but her hobby is botany, specifically botanical illustration, and has been studying botany and botanical illustration for years at the New York Botanical Gardens.

She finds seeds and plants to be exceptionally mysterious, actually spiritual, and has said that that mystery and spirituality is revealed through mathematics. Because she has to draw and paint almost photo-realistic images of plants, she is meticulously aware of how plants are structured.

The gist of the mystery, as she explained it, is really how so little information in a seed creates such complicated structures. Of course we know a lot about the biochemical processes by which seeds germinate. But we don't know how what seems to be relatively little genetic information creates such massive, complex structures as, say, an oak tree.

The old model was that there was all this information in the genes of the seed that were basically a template for the entire plant, but that seems not to be the case.

Instead, plant genes contain mathematical formulas that are closer to Fibonacci numbers and fractals -- very tiny forumulas that are capable of infinite expansion. At its most simple, a Fibonacci series would be a series in which each number is the sum of the prior two numbers:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89,...

Divide any Fibonacci number by the number preceding it, and you get a number that approaches Phi, which is a repeating number that is approximately, 1.61803...

This number has been called the "Golden Ratio."

It turns out that nature in general, but particularly plants (seeds), use Fibonacci numbers to "program" their growth, rather than a complete genetic blueprint. In other words, seeds don't have a genetic plan; they have a formula:

"Count the number of florets spiralling out from the centre of a cauliflower. Look closely and you will find two spirals running in opposite directions, and the number of florets in each are two consecutive Fibonacci numbers."



These same patterns emerge in the spiral of a nautilus, the leaves of a fern, the way leaves branch from vines, and on and on and on in nature. But they also appear in non-organic structures as well. In fact, mathematicians have been able to reproduce natural forms on computers by plotting Fibonacci series and fractals.

Moreover, it turns out that Phi and the Golden Ratio are extremely psychologically pleasing to the human mind, as though like plants, we are pre-programmed to "see" this mathematical formula. It is evident in great paintings, and was developed separately in many of the great art traditions of the world by artists and art teachers who were unaware of the parallel development of its mathematical understanding. Some believe it may explain why certain kinds of nature (an eastern hardwood forest, a high mesa dotted with cactus, for example, which are full of repeating Fibonacci series) provide a kind of spiritual relaxation.

As an avid gardener, I have been especially observant of this phenomenon this past spring and summer -- especially in my tomato plants. I saw that they were not just "growing" but "unfolding" like a Mandelbrot set (see below), with each new small part being a reproduction of the larger part, and with that small part growing larger and creating more smaller parts, and so on -- all from the tiniest of seeds.

In other words, these Fibonacci formulas create "fractal" forms. Fractals are geometric forms that can be broken into parts, such that each part is a smaller representation of the larger whole -- or more intriguingly, a larger whole can be constantly created by reproducing the part. The most famous fractal is the Mandelbroit set, which I urge, urge, urge, everyone interested in the concept of universal forms to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot

Fractals in general can be represented as fairly simple repeating series formulas as well. The Mandelbrot set is very analogous to a Fibonacci series, because it is a repetitive calculation, but in this case it includes complex and imaginary numbers.

When Madelbrot numbers first started being graphed on computers by mathematicians a few decades ago, they found that incredibly complicated forms could be generated -- you could, for example, create these amazing beautiful unfolding forms that mathematically were the size of the galaxy on your home pc. But what was really shocking was that inside these graphed Mandelbrot sets could be found forms in both organic and inorganic nature -- from sea horses to individual snowflakes to spiral galaxies.






In the emerging field of chaos theory, it was proposed that, for example, both organisms and complex inorganic systems "self organize" using these formulas. As the Wiki article on Mandelbrot puts it:

"He <Mandelbrot> also emphasized the use of fractals as realistic and useful models of many "rough" phenomena in the real world. Natural fractals include the shapes of mountains, coastlines and river basins; the structures of plants, blood vessels and lungs; the clustering of galaxies; and Brownian motion. Fractals are found in human pursuits, such as music, painting, architecture, and stock market prices. Mandelbrot believed that fractals, far from being unnatural, were in many ways more intuitive and natural than the artificially smooth objects of traditional Euclidean geometry:

"Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line.
—Mandelbrot, in his introduction to The Fractal Geometry of Nature"

<end quote>

These theories really are revolutionizing the way we look at genetics -- especially explaining how genes in seeds (and in us) are not "plans," but unfolding, repeating formulas, like Fibonacci numbers and Mandelbrot sets, and that we share these formulas with other creatures and with the structure of the universe. And it seems that seeing these formulas in nature or in art may be what gives us a sense of beauty, wonder and spiritual fulfillment.

[enki23]

1. lest it be misunderstood, this isn't magic, nor is it all that precise

many plants have, simply, been selected to maximize sun exposure on their leaves. and a pattern that helps to accomplish that happens to correspond to the fibonnaci numbers. but when some (many) people read something like what you wrote, they instantly jump off into the "magic and numerology" deep end. neither plants nor genes know a damned thing about mathematics. and there is no mystical force that drove plants to grow in golden spirals. plants which got more sunlight than their neighbors tended to reproduce better than their neighbors (all else being equal). that's about it.

in other words, the "fibonnaci plants" thing is a spandrel.

[HamdenRice]

3. "lest it be misunderstood" -- which I think you have

One of the points is that the study of fractals and Fibonacci series in plants is changing the paradigm of genetics. It actually is that precise. It enables us to understand how very little genetic information can create very large, complex structures, because the "plan" for the structure does not need to be built into the genetics -- only the formula. You can think of the formula as a force multiplier for genes.

The spiritual part is that we share that same formula and seem to be genetically programed to see that formula as "beautiful" or upon seeing it, to experience it as a spiritual experience (at least, those of us who are capable of experiencing the spiritual).

An analogy would be in music. There is no particular reason that C and high C should sound "the same" or sound more beautiful together than C and D above high C, but they do, and C and high C have a precise mathematical relationship.

[TZ]

6. "changing the paradigm of genetics"...

Yes because we know plant seeds are EXACTLY comparable to animal genetics!
Yeah, there is a bit of paradigm shifts in genetics but it has less to do with what you are talking about and more to do with studying the structure of DNA...
As for this finding things "beautiful" crap, the evolutionary preferences for aesthetics and symmetry is pretty well studied and its not new age spiritual crap.
Once again trying to use science to show magical or spiritual beliefs is really inappropriate. Science is not warm fuzzies, sorry.

[HamdenRice]

7. As usual sue ...

I wish you the best of luck in some day being able to read, understand, and respond to posts, rather than to things that exist primarily in your own mind.

:hi:

[TZ]

10. Hey wow! Tactic #2 and 3 in the same post!

You are getting more efficient in your attacks!:rofl:

I find it freakin hilarious that you quote the one scientist you know over and over again as representative of the field when I actually work in the sciences and have yet to hear any of my fellow researchers spout this stuff....But then again they are busy doing, ya know, real science....

[trotsky]

9. What's truly interesting...

is that for as much as the believers of this stuff LOVE to bash the field of science and the "fundamentalists" within, they absolutely YEARN to find even the tiniest bits of science to try and lend the weakest of support for their beliefs. Go figure.

[peruban]

12. Aesthetics is not a new idea.

Aristotle studied the concept and found the golden ratio to be like an undercurrent underlying a natural aesthetic. I'm hesitant to apply spirituality to this observation unless a person is using it as a basis for theology, but I agree, science isn't warm and fuzzy, unless you study veterinary medicine and your patients actually are warm and fuzzy. lol

[Odin2005]

88. I've read we are wired to like landscapes that resemble the African savanna.

That's why everyone likes elm trees, their branching pattern is similar to many savanna trees.

As for things like the golden ratio, my hypothesis is that such things are ultimately the expressions of constraints imposed by the laws of physics and life using such constraints so it it doesn't have to waste genetic material.

[HamdenRice]

90. One point: Most of us have never seen an elm tree

I take a writing workshop and have noticed that for some reason, whenever fiction writers want to mention a tree in a descriptive passage, they write about the elms. I like to remind them that most of us have never seen an elm. They were virtually wiped out by Dutch Elm Disease. About 1 out of 100,000 survived, and they are so rare that the few surviving ones are like tourist attractions for botanists. There are a few on Princeton's campus and one is in Union Square Park (? Central Park?) in New York.

That said, I have also heard that we are hard wired to like savanna landscapes and the shape of the elm does somewhat resemble some of the typical trees of the savanna.

[Odin2005]

91. There are tons of elm trees here in Fargo in the older residential areas.

Many have succumbed to Dutch Elm Disease, but it's kept at bay by the city so most of the elms are still here. When you have a whole bunch of them lining streets they create a striking "green Gothic cathedral" effect.

[HamdenRice]

92. Are they old pre epidemic or new disease resistant strains?

There are some disease resistant strains, that were developed recently, and there are a number of organizations dedicated to persuading people to plant the new elms.

I wasn't aware that there were any parts of North America where there were still stands of old elms. That's great. Does it have anything to do with the extreme cold?

Also on the east coast, the only places where elms survived were where they were isolated and the disease could not jump from tree to tree, so it's surprising there are still places where there is an elm cathedral effect.

Even after they trunk and branches die off, elm roots are very long lived, so we do have some areas of surviving young elms, but they only live for a decade or so, get the disease, die off, and then start growing from the roots again.

[Odin2005]

93. They are all old elms.

I think we just got lucky and because the city is extremely vigilant about keeping the disease at bay. Our cold winters may have something to do with it as well. There are many trees with faded black lines on their trunks and sometimes branches missing, indicating that they survived DED infection.

The only issue with them is that their disk-shaped seeds get EVERYWHERE! :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

94. There was some debate about whether here east, we speeded up the disappearance

of elms. I'm not sure whether this was elms or American Chestnuts -- but urban parks departments here on the east coast preemptively cut down millions of trees supposedly to prevent the spread of the disease by creating firewalls type situations, and it's believed that in doing so they destroyed the possibility of disease resistant individuals -- like the ones you are describing -- surviving.

Looks like Fargo did the right thing. Maybe those survivors could be used to replant the rest of the country.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Well

I'm no geneticist, but the claim that there is a genetic predisposition to experience something as "spiritual" kind of pegs out my bullshit meter.

And, um, there IS a reason why a discordant chord is, well, discordant. It's about the sound waves. And I don't know what that possibly has to do with spirituality.

[HamdenRice]

31. "It's about the sound waves." Exactly right ...

but there's no explanation for why a mathematical relationship between sound waves should make the notes sound the same.

A note like high C that is an octave above another note, middle C, and that "sounds the same" in some way, is actually double the frequency of the lower note.

But no one knows why the mathematical relationship, 2x, sounds the "same" when obviously they are not. (This is separate from what I think you may be referring to, which is that certain notes with mathematical relationships when played together create harmonics; the sameness of 2x is perceived when the notes are played separately.) Why do we "hear" "2" in a certain way? There are some theories about brain mapping of frequencies, but nothing very conclusive.

This is across cultures, so we are genetically predisposed to "hear" 2x as being "prettier" than some discordant tonal relationship.

[enki23]

29. spoken like someone without a damned clue what the study of biology really is like

no, it isn't that precise. nothing in nature is *ever* that precise. and by no means do all plants even exhibit that sort of pattern. there is nothing magical about a helix. they are the result of simple rules, simple asymmetries. something so simple as a cell dividing asymmetrically can give rise to a fibonacci pattern. the pattern isn't encoded in the DNA. it arises from simple rules. it's no more magical than a circle, sphere, hexagon, or parabola. nobody with a lick of sense ever claimed DNA had the entire organism mapped out in detail. we always expected to find the patterns of growth to be governed by simpler rules. and lo and behold, that's what we've found. but the actual process of those "rules?" it's messy as all hell.

the fundamental rule of biology is this: it's always messier than you think it is. at the bottom, it's all sloppy chemistry, with numerous redundancies, and massive overproduction to make up for the generally-large error rates of the processes. patterns arise from probabilistic interactions at a lower level, they aren't handed down by dictum. there is no teleos, here or elsewhere. there is no "governing principle," mathematical or otherwise. life is sloppy. it has basic patterns, but it always, *always* fucks them up in some way. there is no magic down there, or up here. we're all collections of water bags doing chemistry and reproducing.

and that "paradigm shift" (almost always a stupid term) in genetics? it's that we are coming to realize that things are considerably *less* elegant than once thought. gene->mRNA->Protein is, on some level, fairly elegant. all the varied processes we too often lump together as "epigenetics" are considerably less so.

[peruban]

39. Yes, but even the messy parts have to play by the rules.

Even in the "art" of medicine, the sloppiness follows by the rules. Surgery, the imperfections of the flesh, biochemistry, and even the sloppiness of death all play by the rules. I think it's a stretch from that into a justification for spiritual belief, though. But the overwhelming predominance of patterns in nature does support the idea of a design, though not necessarily a "designer".

[TZ]

59. But sometimes those rules aren't apparent and there seems to be certain exceptions

As someone who spends time running assays in the lab, there is a lot of wtf moments when everything you *thought* you could predict doesn't come true. If there is any underlying concept in biology and other sciences, I would have to think its chaos theory..

[peruban]

65. Chaos is just another way of explaining what's not understood.

Just like faith in a God. Just because you can't see a pattern doesn't mean it does not exist. As a former lab monkey myself, I did come across anomalies all the time, some of which I could not explain. But you bet your ass there's a reason it happened. I just didn't have enough information to explain the results. It's not chaos, just anomalies without explanation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Actually, no.

Chaos theory involves coming up with simple explanations for what appears on the surface to be randomness.

[peruban]

69. So how is that not an attempt to explain the unknown? n/t

[Odin2005]

89. As a Biochemistry major I know this very well.

For example, the most common protein on Earth, Ribulose Biphosphate Carboxylase/Oxygenase, AKA "Rubisco" is also one of the most terribly inefficient enzymes out there. Rubisco is the enzyme that all photosynthetic life uses to take CO2 and stick it into the Calvin-Benson cycle (or it's more primitive ancstor, the reverse citric acid cycle) in order to make sugar. not only is the enzyme inefficient, it has a nasty habit of wasting the plant's energy by grabbing O2 instead of CO2 (a relic of it's origins as a anti-oxidant enzyme). Rubisco hasn't changed much in 3.5 BILLION years, it's so vital for photosynthesis that any mutation is bad and so natural selection hasn't had much to work with, Rubisco is stuck being an inefficient dinosaur of an enzyme.

[TZ]

2. botany woo.

Thats a new one.

[HamdenRice]

4. Uh, I'll take Madelbrot's word over yours

He's an emeritus professor of mathematics at Yale. Along with the word of a professor of medicine and expert botanist.

[TZ]

5. Somehow I don't think Dr. Mandelbrot

Had talking to the great plant spirit in mind when he put out his theory...Mathematicians tend to be reality oriented people...As was said above there is nothing "mystical" about a seeds growth.

[peruban]

13. Let's not forget that Einstein himself belived in a God.

Natural science and theological beliefs aren't necessarily exclusive of one another and it can be considered that they have more of an overlap than one might be given to think.

[cosmik debris]

18. Let's not forget that Einstein was a physicists not a theologian.

If you are going to appeal to authority, you should at least appeal to an authority in the right subject. It is still a fallacy, but a little less absurd.

:)

[peruban]

20. It's not an appeal to authority, though you seem to like ringing that bell a lot.

I simply stated that science and belief in God are not mutually exclusive or conflicting and I used a well known personality as an example. Please stop reading into things that aren't there just for the sake of being "right".

Oh, and good morning. :hi:

[cosmik debris]

24. Your use of Einstein as a reference for your position

Is an appeal to the authority of Einstein.

Even if he was an authority in that subject, there is no certainty that he is infallible.

If you can't make the case without name-dropping, you have no case.

[peruban]

28. Again, reading into things that aren't there.

It was no appeal to authority. Nuts to whoever gave you that expression, you seem to be overworking it here. The world of opinion does not deal in absolutes, so fallibility does not pay a role here. I used Einstein as an example of a scientific mind open to the notion of a God. Why not try opening your mind a little? I think you just might like it.

[cosmik debris]

30. It's amazing how quickly you turn to insults.

It certainly doesn't strengthen your position.

[peruban]

34. It's amazing how easily you get offended

Given that I have yet to see an original thought from you at all, nothing but bashing. That actually weakens your position.

[cosmik debris]

36. I'm not offended by your ad homs.

And my position speaks for itself.

I'm just observing that you get frustrated and start insulting me when I don't agree with you.

You just look for reason to be mean to me, don't you?

:)

[peruban]

42. Your positions speak for themselves?

Why bother posting them then if they are so self-evident? And it's not that I like or dislike you in any way, I really want to like you, I just have yet to see you put yourself out there for scrutiny with any original ideas. You seem to like judging others with smarmy quips and half-assed responses. Try posting an original opinion for yourself to see what it's like, put your own ideas out there if you're such a keen wit. My guess is that you can dish it out, but are afraid of being ridiculed mercilessly in the same way you do to others. Seriously, put yourself out there for a change, it must be lonely crouching in a corner yelling out against points you contend with. Step out for a change and join the group, I promise not to be as smarmy as you like to come off as. Cynicism and skepticism can only take you so far before is stops being "cool".

[cosmik debris]

43. I do this for amusement. I've already told you that several times.

If you are not amused, don't participate.

[peruban]

45. You have a pretty twisted sense of amusement.

And that type of antisocial behavior is probably why the ignore button was invented. I won't use it, however because I have respect for others and feel that shutting myself in a cocoon does me no good.

[cosmik debris]

46. You can always hide behind your ad homs. n/t

[peruban]

48. Another short, snippy quip.

Please, continue. It "amuses me".

[cosmik debris]

50. I'm glad you're finally on board! n/t

[peruban]

51. btw

I pm'd you this morning.

[HamdenRice]

40. Careful ...

you are now in the downward death spiral with that one. When the tone shifts from repetitive "appeal to authority" to self-pitying claims of ad hom, the conversation has only one place to go, and that's where they always go.

Notice that there have been maybe three posts about Fibonacci numbers, fractals, the Mandelbrot set, or genetics. Almost everything else is same old/same old, accusations of woo, Einstein/god, appeal to authority, "you're insulting me," etc., etc., etc.

It must be very depressing to have such a limited repertoire of topics.

[cosmik debris]

41. #2 yawn n/t

[peruban]

44. Point taken.

It's very easy to loose sight of the real issue when you have someone poking their finger at you constantly without valid suggestions otherwise.

I try to take the high road when it comes to obnoxiousness but it's so easy to get entangled in pointlessness when you are trying to take yourself seriously and the other party isn't. This thread is about the beauty and perfection of natural phenomena, that's my impression, at least. The sidetracking detracts from that, sadly.

[HamdenRice]

21. You don't seem to know what the fallacy of appeal to authority is

and that is reflected in the inconsistency of your posts ("at least appeal to an authority in the right subject"). Or to put it more bluntly you seem not to know what you are talking about at all.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy in syllogistic logic arguments. But none of the discussions you bring this up with respect to are syllogistic logic arguments.

In empirical, inductive science, social science, political, religious, aesthetic and other fields of argument, appeal to authority are valid as part of an argument, so long as the authority is an authority in the relevant field.

(If you disagree with that, then perhaps you should spend most of your time criticizing sue's "I'm a scientist" posts.)

Science is said to disprove religion. That's how they are related. If the greatest scientist of the last several hundred years was not an atheist, then it is appropriate to point to him in discussions of the relationship between science and religion.

[peruban]

22. Thank you, you expressed my opinion much better than I could have.

Very nicely put.

[cosmik debris]

26. #3 yawn n/t

[kwassa]

53. you really have no argument, do you?

Yet you persist as if you do.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone at all?

[peruban]

55. Careful with that axe, Eugene.

You might just "amuse" him further. :P
I had it out with him for a few hours last night, but I figured out what the game was this morning. He's "Mostly Harmless", to reference Douglas Adams.

[cosmik debris]

56. Are you predestined to read my posts?

Or is it a matter of free will?

[peruban]

57. Admit it, you're Loki, aren't you?

The Norse god of misfit. :bounce: :spank:

[kwassa]

58. Free will

I love it when you go off on strawman tangents as you start to lose.

Ah, good times.

[HamdenRice]

62. "Ah, good times..." Ketchuuuuup! ketchuuuuuup!

<sung:>

These are the good years
As good as life permits.
A home in Atlanta
Another on St. Kitts.
Life if flowing like ketchup on your grits.

<voiceover:>

Ketchup, for the good times

<sung:>

Ketchuuuuup! ketchuuuuuup!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:hi:

[TZ]

64. "science is said to disprove religion"

Hmm. You know, most scientists actually DON'T say that. I find it funny that its the non-scientists who claim this alot. Most scientists will tell you that science DOESN'T speak to religion and that they are entirely separate matters. Oh and then there's the little matter of something scientists call the null hypothesis...FWIW, saying I see no evidence of God is NOT the same as saying science disproves the existence of god. Why you cannot make this distinction is beyond me. Willful ignorance perhaps.

[peruban]

68. Spot on.

"Elephant and pig DNA just don't mix."

[HamdenRice]

72. You need to take that issue up with this DUer ---->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=157154#157161

turtlensue
Response to Reply #22
35. Maybe you are talking about

the fact that evolutionary biology/genetics disproves fundamentalist creationist belief that the world is only 6,000 years old? Thats actually an appropriate use of science don't you think. To illustrate the truth? Unless of course you are a bible literalist then of course you don't want to hear any bashing of your religion where bashing in your view is any scientific and rational data that contradicts my belief

<end quote>

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I realize that your posting can get a bit schizoid when you're trying to make a point (badly), but pleeeaassse!!!! Give me a break!

You're making me laugh too hard, turtlegirl!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

74. Busted!

Whatever, turtlegirl!

Because I thought you wrote upthread: "science DOESN'T speak to religion and that they are entirely separate matters."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Hanse]

82. Creationism isn't a religion.

It's a scientific claim made by religious people.

Like geocentrism.

[trotsky]

19. Sort of.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[peruban]

27. He also expressed his disdain for quantum mechanics by referring to a God.

"God does not play dice." is the quote, I believe. So he may not have been your run of the mill religious person, but he still acknowledged there must have been something to make the universe so perfect. I've always treated mathematics as a religious study, myself. The natural order of things and perfection of numerical relations just makes the idea so appealing.

[Goblinmonger]

33. You have heard of a metaphor, right? n/t

[peruban]

35. LOL, yes I've heard of this thing you call metaphor.

But his metaphor used a God in its relation, and to make a reference like that implies that he had some vague notion of a God. In any case, he was not an atheist and believed in an underlying structure of the universe. He simply chose to use physics to describe it rather than theology.

[trotsky]

37. "he was not an atheist and believed in an underlying structure of the universe"

Are those things supposed to be mutually exclusive?

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." - A. Einstein

[peruban]

47. No, I meant no exclusivity there.

My use of the word "and" was not meant to imply that one can't be atheist and still marvel at the beauty of natural patterns. I was just using the word as a grammatical unifier of two thoughts in the same sentence.

And, yes, I'm aware of that quote, but note that he specifies a "personal God". My impression is that he had a more enlightened view of God and His place in the universe. I certainly don't believe in a wish-granting magical deity and I don't think he did either. But I acknowledge that there is SOMETHING there, and I think he did, too. Call it God or whatever you prefer, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

[trotsky]

49. But a rose by any other name is still just a rose.

If you want to call the structure of the universe "god," that's certainly your right, but it doesn't add any understanding, nor does it change that structure either. (You do realize the "God does not play dice" quote is a paraphrase, I assume.)

[peruban]

52. Yes, there is nothing tangibly gained by calling it God.

But religion comforts some of us who find the world to be a harsh and terrible thing. It brings comfort to think that all is not meaningless. I certainly find comfort in believing in God, but I haven't always believed that. I, too once considered myself an atheist. There came a time in my life, however, when I needed the comfort of faith and so I made the conscious decision to believe. I don't think it makes me less or more of a person in any way, it's just a sort of coping mechanism, if I can reduce it to that.

Oh, and I think it was a direct quote not a paraphrase, I read about it in one of my quantum mechanics textbooks. I will research it, though, you've given me a reason to doubt it.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I'm saying that God was the metaphor

for whatever it is that "created" the universe. He is essentially saying that the universe (which to him is very ordered hence his claim that chaos theory is flawed) doesn't play dice. Of course he had a "vague notion of God"; he isn't a moron. I don't know how you make the leap from a belief in "an underlying structure of the universe" to a belief in God.

[peruban]

54. It's called "faith". That's why it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If belief in God were scientifically or rationally provable or disprovable we would all believe or be atheists, in their respective cases. Since it's not people have differing opinions on the matter. Neither approach is wrong or right, it's how the opinion is viewed that makes the difference. If believers weren't always trying to convert non-believers and vice versa a common respect could be held between the two positions. I certainly don't think God is for everyone, it just works for me. Atheism may just work for you. No harm done.

And he was commenting on quantum mechanics, not chaos theory. Quantum mechanics was in its infancy period at the time. Chaos theory didn't develop until the 1960's or so.

[TZ]

61. But Einstein didn't use his knowledge of physics to try to justify

his religious beliefs. And thats what I object to..No, I do think that you can believe in God and be a scientist, I've met people who are both. But really one has little to do with the other...Science and Religion are two separate entities entirely and I really get tired of people who try to hijack inappropriately the scientific paradigm to push a theological agenda as I believe the OP is trying to do here. I really do have a fine appreciation for the wonder of science and nature but that subjective feeling isn't enough for me to speak on it being proof of a god or afterlife....
FWIW, I think you've made some good/interesting points, even if I don't entirely agree with you.
:)

[peruban]

70. It comes down to a matter of taste.

I agree that explaining or disproving religion empirically is doomed to failure. It's apples and oranges. I agree that they shouldn't be used to support one another, but for those who believe, the beauty encourages belief. You just can't take that away from someone who believes. It's just a different perspective, not better or worse, just different.

[Odin2005]

87. Einstein was a Pantheist, and Pantheism is just "sexed up Atheism" to quote Dawkins.

My beliefs would qualify me to be called a "Pantheist" of some type or another, even though I call myself an atheist and Secular Humanist.

[cosmik debris]

8. Argument from "authority". n/t

[peruban]

11. No surprise to me.

I've always contended that every natural phenomenon can be broken down into mathematics and that mathematics is the universal language of relation. Mathematical application is always finding new structures in seemingly random occurrences. So it just makes sense that seeds may not necessarily have all of its programming in genetics and that growth and development follow a natural order of things.

[ensho]

14. I'm a fractal fan and I crochet - many fractals show crochet stitches

its amazing! the fractal picture looks exactly like a crochet piece.

Patterns also interest me. they have discovered that chaos and randomness do have patterns.

"Patterns compel, structures compel."
from the novel Rats and Gargoyles by Mary Gentle


"She had learned that a strange attractor was not simply a point but could also be a pattern that repeated over and over, always similar, never exactly the same."
from the novel Death Qualified by Kate Wilhelm


its all so interesting, thanks for posting.

[peruban]

15. You proabably didnt mean to pose a contradiction

But if chaos and randomness have pasterns they are no longer chaotic and random. Just making an observation on that minor detail.

[ensho]

23. I can see where chaos and randomness can have a pattern and

still be chaotic and random.

there isn't anything that does not have a pattern. or, there is nothing that isn't in a pattern.

[peruban]

32. I agree to disagree on this minor semantic detail.

I pretty much agree with you in general. Mathematics is constantly finding pasterns in seemingly random and chaotic events, I just word myself a little differently. If a pattern or structure is discovered then I like to think that randomness and chaos cease to exist.

[Nihil]

84. I think your understanding of the word "chaos" here is the problem.

You have a tendency to group the words "chaos" and "randomness" together
when they are actually two different things.

Chaos means an non-periodic deterministic behavior that is incredibly
sensitive to its initial conditions. This means that a tiny difference
in initial conditions for a chaotic system can produce huge differences
in the subsequent output.

Chaotic systems may look random but they aren't. They are repeatably
deterministic systems - ones whose results are predictable if you
have enough information (or control) at the start as they operate
by formula (often simple) or physical laws but which are very *very*
difficult to predict accurately if there are *any* variances in that
startup data.

Randomness is "a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability".
A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow *no*
describable deterministic pattern. Although, for a large enough sample,
they may follow a probability distribution (i.e., the expectation that
a certain percentage of the results will fall within certain limits)
the result of a single operation will not be predictable.

Truly random systems are not repeatably deterministic and thus their
results are not predictable regardless of the control or information
that you possess at the start of the operation.

Hence your comment:
> But if chaos and randomness have pasterns they are no longer chaotic
> and random
... is wrong. Chaos *does* (in fact *must*) have patterns and chaotic
systems will *always* result in such patterns. Only random systems do not
possess patterns (although human perception will often overlay a random
display with a false pattern as that's just the way that perception tends
to work with normal humans - but this is a different argument!).

Hope this helps.

:hi:

[ensho]

86. thanks - nicely explained

nt

[HamdenRice]

16. Crochet is an "iterative" process like fractals

You are repeating the same thing over and over, but a value that does not come back to its starting point -- hence basic spirals, eg of a nautilus shell, or the squares on a pinapple or certain crochet stitches, are fibunacci numbers.

[charlie]

17. Nautilus shells are one of those often-used examples

of the ubiquity of the Fibonacci sequence. But if you compare shells with a golden ratio diagram, they aren't even close. Shells have more iterations than the ratio can physically accomodate:

http://images.google.com/images?q=nautilus%20shell
http://images.google.com/images?q=golden+mean

[Sophree]

95. The Cat's Eye Nebula

The "Cat's Eye Nebula" looks like a seashell to me-



And so many other pictures taken of outer space look like things here on Earth.

I had an interesting conversation with a Rabbi about fractals, at least I believe that was what he was referring to. Are fractals and the Fibonacci sequence considered Quantum Mathematics? Or Quantum Physics? I can't remember which was his area of study, but I think it was one or the other.

[HamdenRice]

96. Fractals and Fibonacci are not Quantum Mathematics

Fractals are part of geometry and Fibonacci Series is part of Number Theory -- but those categories somewhat artificially separate two closely related concepts.

Quantum Mechanics is something completely different -- it's basically part of the laws of physics for the sub atomic world (eg the way electrons change their states in quanta and not smoothly), which are different from the laws of physics on our scale.

[Sophree]

97. Ah, ok.

It's interesting, nonetheless.

[silverweb]

60. Fascinating and beautiful.

Thank you for posting this.

[HamdenRice]

63. Thanks! Especially for some signal to emerge from the materialist atheist background noise! nt

[TZ]

66. I would put the signal to backround noise ratio at about 2:1

Scientists 2: Backround noise (Hamdenrice NONscientist 1)
You've lived "down" to my expectations again!
I need to be like R_A and count the amount of ad homs per post in this thread. Pretty high I think.

[HamdenRice]

71. "my expectations"

That, and $2 will get you a ride on the subway here in New York! You do realize, don't you, that when most normal DUers encounter your posts, the only reasonable response is ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Uh, ... do you realize how unimportant your opinion actually is?

Oh, I forgot! You're a "scientist"! How's that going these days?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

76. "the only non-pHD in the room"

:rofl:

I assume you meant Ph.D, not pHD -- I mean the proper initials for the degree you don't have.

Congrats on the new clothes! I'm sure you look very pretty now!

[Hanse]

83. You're resorting to arguing over typos?

After all the immaturity, intellectual dishonesty, logical fallacies, and general naivete... you're resorting to pointing out other people's typos?

[HamdenRice]

77. So, let me get this straight. You call yourself a "scientist" but ...

you don't have a Ph.D, and you don't even have a Master's Degree?

o rly?

And everyone is supposed to shut up and listen to you as opposed to Benoit Mandelbrot?

[Silent3]

81. What conflict exists between Mandlebrot and turtlensue?

I seem to have missed the part where turtlensue said Mandelbrot was wrong about something. Can you point that out for me?

[silverweb]

80. One reason I made the point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. An alternative viewpoint:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

which looks at, for instance, the idea about spiral patterns, and the claim about the Nautilus shell.

[Silent3]

79. Beautiful stuff. If you're trying to make the point that...

...amazing complexity and beauty, including things which might poetically described as "spiritual", can arise from "mere" material components following simple rules with surprising results, your examples make that point well.

But from your past posts that doesn't seem to be the kind of point you'd try to make, so I can't figure what you're trying to say all of this means.

[HamdenRice]

85. A few separate points

I'm not using the word, "spiritual" in a supernatural sense, or as something that exists outside of subjective human consciousness. It's just a state of consciousness, like happiness or sadness, that some people are capable of experiencing. Some people experience it through meditation. Some through religious practice. Some people I know experience it through contemplation of science. Some people experience it through contemplation of scenic beauty in nature.

The point here is that some people experience this state of consciousness by viewing natural forms, and this doctor/botanist/artist was speculating that we may be hard wired to experience this state of consciousness in contemplation of natural forms that conform to Fibonacci series or the Golden Ratio -- in the same way we are hard wired to hear a note at frequency x as somehow "the same" as a note of frequency 2x.

The other point was that this model of genes as using mathematical formulas makes sense in terms of genetic efficiency and the observation that there is less genetic information that actually models stuff than had initially been theorized and more junk DNA. It's a much more elegant model if DNA creates simple fractal forms that grow through into complex organisms, than for DNA to have a complete blueprint of the finished organism.