Nature by the Numbers
May 13, 2011 in Uncategorized | Tags: science
Recent Comments
 | That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Narration on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
53 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 13, 2011 at 10:44 am
Gaia
Brought to you by the same men who brought you Chernobyl and Fukushima. Do you really need to reduce nature to numbers?
May 13, 2011 at 11:24 am
WTF
You need to catch up Eric,
This was Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci, that he and others developed as a series of numbers or math that related to everything in nature, the golden mean or measure. Can’t remember the date of Fibonacci’s life, but it is something and nothing new. Thank you for sharing that video. Numbers and math, Quantum Physics or Mechanics, String theory and General Relativity, they all come down to numbers in nature, just like DNA. Fibonacci figured out the mathematical numbers to nature and started the ball rolling.
May 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Mitch
This is incredibly beautiful. It’s a shame that Gaia thinks it is reducing nature to anything.
May 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Mitch
To continue, what it is showing is how some of the spectacular forms observed in nature can be explained by pretty basic mathematics. The simple fact that mathematics is at the heart of these patterns can be hard to grasp; this video is an extraordinary teaching and learning tool, for those who do not fear that being able to connect mathematics and the natural world will reduce the meaning or significance of the natural world.
May 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Mitch
Oh, yeah. Gaia, are you absolutely sure it’s the same men?
May 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Erasmus
The creator of the “Gaia hypothesis,” James Lovelock, is now a fervent supporter of nuclear energy —- I wouldn’t pay much attention to “Gaia”‘s mean-spirited comment.
May 13, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Eric Kirk
You need to catch up Eric,
Catch up to what?
I wouldn’t pay much attention to “Gaia”‘s mean-spirited comment.
I don’t think it’s mean spirited. Just technophobia. Or sciencephobia. Or even knowledgphobia. There are probably more precise words.
May 13, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Ernie's Place
It’s hard to talk about nature without simply attributing it to “God”, but I still have that burning question, where did God come from? Who made him?
The thing that is most apparent to me is the similarities between all species, legs, eyes, ears noses, fins etcetera. And, the fact that critters are mostly mirror bi-lateral. It certainly pushes the point that we have a common ancestor somewhere in history. Math in nature works for me. The fuzzy lines make me nervous.
May 13, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Eric Kirk
where did God come from? Who made him?
God.
May 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Plain Jane
Mathematics is certainly more beautiful in it’s natural expression than on a chalkboard.
May 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm
tra
True dat.
May 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm
WTF
What I thnk “Gaia” is trying to say; “The road to hell is often paved with good intentions”. Just like with Alfred Nobel, Wernher von Braun and Robert Oppenheimer, just to name a few. Who are known and recognized for using mathematical numbers in physics and chemistry. But there can always be a deadly dangerous down side to every good intention.
May 13, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Unk John
That, PJ, depends on with whom you are speaking. I tend to believe they both have real beauty. The natural beauty is there for all to see, but some of the subtleties generally need the use of some sort of writing to aid in “seeing” them.
An example is that if one takes each member of the fibonacci sequence and divides it by the previous term, one finds a new sequence of numbers that actually converges to phi, the golden mean.
Fibonacci, born Leonardo da Pisa, lived in the 12th to 13th century and to my knowledge never equated the sequence to nature in general. He showed a solution to a problem in his book, “Liber Abaci”, concerning the number of pairs of rabbits after each month in a controlled environment. The discovery that the sequence describes natural processes came later. By the way, we think that finding a 4 leaf clover is lucky, largely because they’re rare. They are rare because 4 is not a Fibonacci number.
Ernie’s comment about how we all – mostly – have two eyes, two legs, 5 fingers, etc is a discussion that could involve fractal geometry which, in one sense can be thought of as the geometry of chaos theory. It is in that field where one finds that extremely complicated structures can come from unbelievably simple rules that are repeated over and over.
I’d better stop.
May 13, 2011 at 3:14 pm
tra
I’m willing to buy the idea that there is true beauty to be perceived in the mathmatical equations on a chalkboard. But at least for me, it’s easier see that beauty as it manifests itself in nature.
May 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Jim
Speaking of nature, get ready for less of it. State parks released the list of closure due to budget cuts, 70 total.
Big one for SoHum: Benbow Lake SRA
Won’t close this year, but locked up by next.
Looks like ROTR will be under pressure to move next year…
May 13, 2011 at 8:24 pm
merrymount
Remember the film “PI”? Or maybe it’s “pi”. Same but different. Almost as much fun as this little video.
Nature is magick, all around us manifest. Magick. Please don’t willingly forget.
May 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Plain Jane
I’m sure you’re right Unk John, but I still prefer to look at dragonflies over equations. I am more amazed by termites’ ability to build symmetrical arches than complex engineering plans.
May 13, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Unk John
tra and PJ – point taken. It’s just that when you see processes that describe natural objects and do it astoundingly well, it seems to me that a different beauty is revealed.
Which one is more satisfying? For me, it can go either way … or both.
May 13, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Eric Kirk
By way of disclosure, Unk John is a retired high school math teacher who was very enthusiastic about his craft.
May 14, 2011 at 4:04 am
Anonymous
What do you say about a person who goes on to tell you what another persons was “trying to say”. HTF do you know what htat person was trying to say? You think you do because of your King Size ego!
Eric you slam Fox News but what did CNN or MSNBC report on the same day? Nothing about Fukashima but you naturally have to show your bias against Fox News. Why is it htat Fox News is the #1 rated Cable News Network? Must be a mistake right Eric. You are not as bright as you seem to think you are, not that funny either. But of course that is just my opinion.
May 14, 2011 at 6:15 am
Mitch
For non-mathematicians, math at its best not only reveals underlying order where none is visible, but reveals complexity where we think we see simplicity, and simplicity where we think we see complexity. That sort of shaking-up of assumptions is the same thing we seek in a good novel.
To the extent we actually understand what we are taught in high school, we ought to be in a continual state of amazement.
For example, take a square 100 feet on a side and draw a diagonal through it. Now divide the side of the square into any number of equally-sized sticks, you can divide it by any finite number you like, so you can have sticks only 1 mm long if you like. No matter how small the stick, you’ll never be able to fit an exact number of sticks along the diagonal, there’ll always be some number of sticks and a little diagonal left over that’s too small to fit another stick into. The square and its diagonal are literally incommensurable — there is no way to measure them with the same stick. Ask a math teacher and she’ll prove it to you with perhaps five lines that need not involve anything complicated. She may also explain how, at least in legend, this led to religious conflict.
Most of us know the concept already, but the amazement is hidden because we’ve filed it away with a phrase, irrational number, so most of us don’t wake up thinking about it any longer,
The same applies to an endless number of concepts, many of which, like fractal geometry, are new from the 20th century.
The beauty of math is that these unexpected and amazing results apply always and in all things, because they aren’t based on any particular physical instance of anything, just on numbers and some rules. You don’t need to own a lab or a superconducting supercollider.
Just poke a neuron at the nature of reality, and if you actually LOOK at what you see, you’ll always get surprised
May 14, 2011 at 7:50 am
Eric Kirk
You are not as bright as you seem to think you are, not that funny either.
No? Well I think I am!
May 14, 2011 at 8:38 am
Bolithio
Remember the film “PI”?
An excellent film. Darren Aronofsky has a knack for making rad movies.
May 14, 2011 at 9:42 am
Erasmus
I assume that “rad”is a misprint for “bad,” given that Aronofsky inflicted “Black Swan” on the world.
May 14, 2011 at 10:50 am
Unk John
First of all, what the hell is Anonymous 4:04 talking about? Perhaps at that time of day he/she was a little groggy. and got on the wrong thread. Furthermore, I’m not sure any more than Eric probably is why Fox “News” is rated number one, but I suspect that it has little to do with people’s ability in spelling or the use of those little thingies called “punctuation marks”.
Eric, you have blown my cover. Now, no one will listen to me and they will probably start throwing things in my direction.
Mitch, you have been reading some incommensurable books, I think. Alas, poor hippasus, I knew him not, but perhaps he could have profited from extra training from Navy Seals.
I have only seen “Pi” one time and I was unable to watch the whole thing. I will watch it again. Also, if anyone would like a good introduction to fractal geometry, may I suggest a nice little paperback cleverly titled “Introducing Fractal Geometry”. It is one of those that has a lot of cartooning in it, but it does the job.
May 14, 2011 at 10:53 am
Unk John
Nice of me to rail about punctuation after I put a period where I should have used a comma. Oh, well …
May 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm
suzy blah blah
Unk John -what you think is more beautiful, a three leaf clover or a four leaf?
May 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Ernie's Place
I know that Suzy didn’t ask me but I think that I like a four leaf clover best, because it goes against the rules. For some strange reason I like that. But, superficially they are both beautiful.
May 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Plain Jane
Rare things like 4 leaf clovers are prized over common 3 leaf clovers, but they aren’t necessarily more beautiful. Myths about their luck probably play a large role in their value. If they were considered unlucky most people wouldn’t go looking in clover patches.
May 14, 2011 at 6:16 pm
suzy blah blah
I found a four leaf clover once, so I put it in a heavy book to flatten it and preserve it, but when I went to open the book I found that one of the leafs tore off. That’s what I get for trying to press my luck.
I know that Suzy didn’t ask me but…
OK, here’s one specially for you Ernie –If someone who cannot count finds a four leaf clover, are they lucky?
May 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm
olmanriver
best laugh of the week goes to suzy!
thnx
May 15, 2011 at 12:49 am
Unk John
Suzy – To decide between a three leaf and a four leaf clover is an impossible task for me. Again, I see a beauty of a different kind in either of them. Ernie’s “Rareness Criterion” is not to be discounted, but neither is the simplicity aspect of the three leaf variety. Also, three is a prime number whereas four is not. However, four is a perfect square. It is the square of two, which is the only prime number that also happens to be even, making it the oddest of all primes. Looking at these facts, I will simply wimp out and say that I enjoy the beauty of both.
If I may be so bold as to answer the question you asked Ernie, namely, “If someone who cannot count finds a four leaf clover, are they lucky?” I think that they are lucky, but they cannot count on it.
By the way, the video used a dragonfly in the presentation. Reducing nature to numbers is often useful. Most people may be aware that the form of the dragonfly was used to build the first successful helicoptor, but how many are aware that Eric has two second cousins who both happen to be great grandsons of Igor Sikorsky.
May 15, 2011 at 1:14 am
suzy blah blah
“If someone who cannot count finds a four leaf clover, are they lucky?” I think that they are lucky, but they cannot count on it.
LOL! All I can think of is Chico Marx.
May 15, 2011 at 7:34 am
gpf
I’ve been puzzled by by the following apparent contradiction:
1. DNA shows that all organisms have or had a common ancestor.
2. Evidence suggest that with the right mix of amino acids, electrical charge etc new life will begin. Therefore there is a possibility of extraterrestial life.
On Earth, a billion years ago, life began…once. Why hasn’t new life emerged on Earth since then?
May 15, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Mitch
gpf,
FIrst off, we don’t know that all life on earth has a common ancestor, only that the life forms we see now and in the fossil record appear to have a common ancestor.
Second, the ancient “primordial soup” that some theorize served as the nutrient broth from which life could emerge no longer exists, and the planet’s atmosphere shields a lot of the mutation-inducing rays that may have once reached the surface.
Third, if the emergence of life happens only once in, say, every 1,000,000 situations in which it could theoretically occur, then the emergence of two forms could be guessed to occur only once every 1,000,000,000,000 times. Once in a million is a lot likelier than once in a million million.
I’m sure there’s a zillion other possible reasons, but it’s an interesting question.
May 15, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Eric Kirk
Another possibility is that the later life forms are constantly gobbled up for their proteins by the status quo organisms, before they get off the ground.
May 15, 2011 at 8:58 pm
tra
Same thing that happens to many young, idealistic reformers.
May 16, 2011 at 10:36 am
Unk John
Also, gpf, there are “new life forms” being discovered all the time, although I suspect that they are not what you are directly asking about. However, even though these new life forms look like things we have seen before, until scientists do some more investigating – structure of the creature, fossil records, that sort of thing – we don’t really know what they are and may never know.
I am not a biologist nor do I claim to be an expert on evolution. I do know, however, that when the “primordial soup” that Mitch mentioned is reproduced in the laboratory and is energized by electricity, amino acids start forming. Amino acids can form proteins, then, well the rest is history.
LIke I said, I’m no expert but it seems likely to me that the primordial soup thing does occur occasionally in some location(s) and something new does form. The problem is that before we might recognize it as a large life form, time must pass. Lots of time. Actually, lots and lots and lots of time. Before that happens. Eric’s suggestion might do away with the poor thing, even though it may be adapting quite nicely. I like Jerry Coyne’s way of putting it. He says that it is really survival of the fitter, not the fittest.
May 17, 2011 at 7:46 am
gpf
Good answers. ‘Looking’ forward from back before life began on earth, the chance that I could be alive at all is 1 in 1,000,000, and to be human, here in Humboldt (Heaven), must be 1/1,000,000th of that!
I’m very fortunate. Thanks all!
May 17, 2011 at 9:32 am
Eric Kirk
By the way, the video used a dragonfly in the presentation. Reducing nature to numbers is often useful. Most people may be aware that the form of the dragonfly was used to build the first successful helicoptor, but how many are aware that Eric has two second cousins who both happen to be great grandsons of Igor Sikorsky.
See, now, maybe there’s a fractal/fibonacci sequence in here somewhere. Jana’s ex was an engineer for Sikorsky, Inc.
May 17, 2011 at 10:31 am
Erasmus
Unk John seems to be implying that scientists have some idea of how life began on this planet, and he ends his comment by quoting Jerry Coyne. — In the most recent issue of “New Scientist” magazine, Coyne is quoted on the subject of life’s origin: “There are so many different scenarios for how life got going and they all involve molecules that don’t get fossilised. It’s a clear limit.” — The limit to which he refers is reflected in the article’s title: “What We’ll Never Know.” — Sir Fred Hoyle thought the chance of life originating on earth without a superior intelligence guiding its development to be so unlikely that he switched to agnosticism from atheism. A true-blue atheist like Francis Crick preferred to hypothesize about “panspermia.”
May 17, 2011 at 10:39 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Sir Hoyle forgot about TRA’s turtles. They render any probability-based argument for god’s existence so silly that they aren’t even wrong.
May 17, 2011 at 11:33 am
Eric Kirk
The Miller-Urey and subsequent experiments took us a long way, but Coyne is right that we will probably never know how long replicating DNA strands came together in nature unless we can arrive at another younger planet somewhere under similar conditions and watch it happen.
May 17, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Plain Jane
Troublesome turtles always messing up otherwise great hypotheses.
May 17, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Mitch
Eric,
Another approach will be the sort of sophisticated computer model simulations that I’m sure will come along long before we locate and investigate that younger planet. At the speed at which computer technology is progressing, and especially if quantum computing fulfills its promise, it should be possible to put all the potential interactions between a few thousand or a few hundred thousand molecules into the computer and see what comes out over sped-up time.
May 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Erasmus
If I could persuade Mitch to read one book, I would urge upon him one by Martin Gardner, whom many readers know best from his columns in “Scientific American” and “Sceptic”-type magazines. (He died not long ago, in his 90s). Chapters 12 and 13 of “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener” are entitled “Why I Do Not Believe God’s Existence Can Be Demonstrated” (this chapter proves that Gardner is sane and logical) and “Why I Am Not an Atheist” (to demonstrate that he is not …. shallow). The book as a whole is worth reading:”Why I Am Not a Smithian” deals with economics. I consider Mitch to be too intelligent to be dogmatic on issues of ultimate concern, and a reading of Gardner might season his agile brain with a salutary dose of humility.
May 17, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Mitch
I’ll check it out, Erasmus. Due to deadlines, probably not right away. Humility’s never a bad idea, and it’s rarely urged upon anyone with such sweetness.
I didn’t mean to insist that god doesn’t exist, though I’m not a believer. I only meant to say that to use the existence of god as an explanation for otherwise unlikely phenomena is not a very sensible approach, given that god would be a harder phenomenon to explain than the unlikely phenomena her existence is called upon to explain.
I don’t think that’s dogmatic.
May 17, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Eric Kirk
Mitch – the problem with the computer replications is that the results are only as good as the data. One of the problems with the Miller-Uley tests and subsequent tests is that there’s no consensus as to what the atmosphere makeup was at the time, and the theories change and shift all the time. Too much of one element can result in fewer than the necessary 20 amino acids being created. Too little of another can lead to too many amino acids which won’t interact in a way that will allow for the construction of more complex organic compounds. I guess computers can be used to replicate numerous scenarios, but can we think of even a fraction of the factors which might have been involved?
I don’t know. It’s way above my pay grade. But the question being asked is whether, given the extreme unlikelihoods involved, that materialism itself requires faith.
May 17, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Mitch
Fair enough. But even if you were to ignore the particular set of chemicals and their physical interactions, if you could get a computer simulation to start from building blocks that combine but don’t replicate, allow it to cook in the computer, and come out with anything capable of replication, you’ve got an existence proof for the origin of replicating life forms.
May 17, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Eric Kirk
I imagine someone’s working on it. If they’re mapping the genome history, maybe they can just work backwards.
May 17, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Mitch
Eric,
Your lips to Oak Ridge National Lab’s ears.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101004151725.htm
May 17, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Mr. Nice
This is all wrong.
Life was born when Mars 2 crashed into Earth and made Earth spin hella fast.
Don’t believe it? Peep these shitty computer models with the big ass moon rock flying off.
To find extraterrestrial fuckers, all we got to do is find some other planet that got hit by another planet billions of years ago. That’s prolly how the aliens found us.
May 18, 2011 at 6:16 am
Mitch
I’ve looked at the images, Mr. Nice, even using a magnifying glass. I don’t see a single critter.