Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Mathematics is a limited way to describe nature - try counting a sub-atomic particle, it's impossible. It might be there, it might not - and as soon as you know whether it was there or not it's gone somewhere else (or has it?).
|
This would be true if mathematics were the limited discipline it is generally considered to be. Statistics are excellent at dealing with these fuzzy areas, however - indeed, I tend to think of statistics as the single most useful mathematical discipline, because of the doors it opens to empirical study.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
A feature of the universe is just that, a feature - something arbitrarily separated from the rest of nature by our minds.
|
Sorry, I don't view nature as one giant holistic mass, and don't see that there is something "arbitrary" about the way one feature can be "separated" from unrelated features in an attempt it for us to understand it. I don't uncategorically reject this standpoint, but I'd like to know why you think this has to be true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Mathematics help describe the relationships between those features we have deemed useful, but it's all invention piled on top of invention.
|
No, it's deduction, not invention; that's the way mathematics was developed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Why is the ratio aesthetically pleasing? It would help an animal distinguish the diseased from the healthy. A potential mate with limbs not fitting the Phi ratio may well be deformed and hence poor breeding material. It's not to much of a jump to guess that a system evolved to express such a preference might be implemented as a more general liking for things that posses similar proportions.
|
This is close to my own view. I think that psychometric
g (the statistical distillate of IQ tests, and an excellent proxy for what laymen mean when they use the word "intelligence") itself allows us to see ratios and patterns, even if only on a subconscious level, and that some other psychological system gives us a sense of pleasure whenever we come across these things. Unfortunately this is only a rather vague outline for what seems to be happening; how exactly does
g allow us to detect Phi? Why do we prefer Phi to other constants such as
e or Pi? What mechanism causes us to gravitate towards and "like" Phi in the first place? (Some other construct which differs from person to person, such as Psychometric O?)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fckm
No Offense, but one semester of differential equations means nothing in the long run.
|
Put my statement back into context and it means plenty: it explains what 1010011010 can and cannot easily discuss with me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fckm
In order to prove that human aesthetics is underlined by phi, you would need to measure "aethetic" qualities (whatever that means) out to an infinite precision.
|
Not at all. To test whether Phi underlies human aesthetics, we need merely make a prediction based on this hypothesis and then carry out a psychological study to confirm or deny it. Again, this won't tell us with certainty that Phi does or does not underlie human aesthetics, but if acceptibly small p-values are achieved, even the staunchest skeptic would blush to claim "You still haven't proven anything!" Some such studies have been carried out, but since you don't want links, you won't get any.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by John Henry
roflmfao. I have a MASTERS DEGREE in physics, but thanks for the advice all the same.
|
Well, if you appreciated my earlier advice, I can give you more: You may want to consider taking a refresher course, because it is a very low level fact that every equation, formula, and constant in settled science is an empirically tested expression of empirical observations. You can assert all you like that
Numbers do not exist in nature, they exist in our heads and then wander off on a tangent involving goldfish and the holy trinity, but that won't change the fact that science discovers what is and isn't there rather than dictating what is and isn't there like a revealed religion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 666
Well, if we agree about Phi-harmonic systems, then the recurrence of Phi everywhere is just an emergent property.
|
I keep seeing people write this way on this thread. It's frustrating; one of my strongest personal motivators is curiosity, and nothing for me is ever "just" or "merely." I always prefer to ask more questions, and in fact I consider this a moral obligation, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 666
As for why we'd use Phi based music rather than, say, e. Presumably, our ears are Phi based, so Phi based chords might set up nodes and standing waves at all the right places in our Phi based ears. e based music would also set up nodes and standing waves, they just wouldn't be in the right places, as far as out Phi based ears are concerned. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, honestly. And I don't actually know if Phi shows up in the structure of our ears.
|
This is a creative explanation, but I don't think it's a very likely one. I don't think our ears are so precisely attuned to Phi; many things in nature approach Phi, just as many things in nature approach Pi (you are of course aware that no heavenly body is perfectly spherical).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 666
As for "Why Phi?" It could have some empirical advantage over e or 2^0.5 (haven't a clue how to go about evaluating that) or it could just be Phi was the first out of the gate, and the others, if/when they finally showed up, never really caught on or couldn't compete in the Phi-based environment.
|
Do we really live in an environment that is so Phi based? I'm not sure that Phi
does have some empirical advantage - at least in mathematics,
e and pi both figure far more prominently. Sine waves are also quite common in nature, but people don't gravitate towards sine waves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 666
On to visual appeal... if we ignore the question of why Phi shows up in various biological ratios, and merely note that it does... Than a beautiful human, for example, one that was perfectly formed, would have Phi this and Phi that.
|
...And
e this and
e that. And Pi this and Pi that. Do we see
e and Pi everywhere in an attractive human body? The eye is the only place that really approximates pi, and as for
e, I don't know of it being visible anywhere.
Truth be told, I think that sexual attraction and
aesthetics are two functionally different things. I prefer bold, sharp corners, blacks, blues, and violets, and harsh contrasts in visual art, and the music I prefer (and compose) does not use lyrics. If aesthetics were merely sexual attraction, then I would prefer soft, round forms, pale peaches, magentas, and whites, and the sound of people talking to instrumental music. Why is music more aesthetically appealing to me than the sound of a woman's voice?
To the best of my knowledge, the mechanism underlying sexual attraction is the same mechanism for hunger, and it
is based on health, but this is different from Phi. The mechanism underlying artistic appreciation is different, and I think it is a by-product of our developing intelligence; you can read
This Essay for a more thorough explanation of my position.
--Mark