Welcome to Gaia! ::

The divine proportion.... Ahhhh, the glory of Da Vinchi Code. Love the book, but I'm off topic, that's just how I learned the number. In my mind it's just a signification on the fact that not just math (cause I don't see math as perfect) but the universe itself, since there is nothing divine or mortal ruling it, shining through with it's perfection.
As to the part about the arks. Since the number is divine in it's own behalf, even before people could realize the number they were using, it was used. Even before whenever Noah and the Ark of the Covenant were formed. Why is there no proof? Wear, destruction. The glory that number gave was destroyed.

Sound is vibrations, true. But that is not the only type of vibration that can create energy. Electrical reactions also carry vibrations and energy, so therefore, chemical and electrical reactions that occur can be what set the formation of the universe and existence into the spiral that took place.

I don't know much about superstring, so I'll let my betters address that one.

But I don't accept the whole "divine proportion" thing at all. Oh, I admit it's there... but it's only there because you look for it.

Looking over that site, I've seen several times when they've used measurements that are "roughly" or "approximately". Not to mention how much individual variation within organisms will throw off such calculations. If you open the "roughly" category wide enough, say, to within ten percent, then of course you're going to find lots of things that fit the ratio. All you're doing is accepting a bigger span of ratios that are most likely random in origin (say 1000 people chose a number between 1 and 100... few, perhaps none, would choose twenty-seven [our 'magic number' for this example]. But if we counted anywhere from twenty to thirty-five as being close enough, suddenly lots of people are choosing our magic number, even though it's totally random!). In other words, the data they've got is being made to fit... it's got to, because individual variance cannot be removed, even though that's exactly what makes a "divine proportion" impossible.

Another criticism I have is this: They only give you ratios that work out the way they want them to. Going back to our example, let's say 10,000 people pick a number between 1 and 100. On average, about 100 will pick 27. But if we then list those hundred people and ignore the remaining 9,900, it certainly looks like we've got a majic number on our hands! The same is happening here; there are literally billions of combinations of things you could conceivably compare about the human body. All they've done is taken out the ones that give the answer they want, and neatly tucked the others away under the rug.

Show me statistical significance to phi being in a greater number of places than mere chance (by comparing the number of comparisons that work to the ones that don't), and I'll be the first to recant. But until then, I maintain that any number can be a 'magic number' as long as a person's got enough patience, enough time and a ruler to find it in enough places.

I think you missed my point.

My point was it doesn't repeat constantly any more than any other number would if you look for it in the right places. I admit all the information that's given, but I also acknowledge that all the information given is specifically the information that fits. Again, even if 10,000 people pick a number at random, if you then only list the ones who chose 27 and leave the rest out, it looks like there was a pattern to the selection after all.

A lot of people write books and articles and say "Wow! Earth is perfectly suited to life! What are the odds of this planet being so perfect for the life that has arisen on it?" Well, the answer is 100%. Because if earth weren't perfect for this type of life, life wouldn't arise and no one would ask the question. It's a common statistical problem; the viewer biases his results simply through the act of looking for results. I forget what it's called.

As a test, I'm going to assume a new "divine number" and attempt to find examples of it in everything I look at. I'll use 2, to keep the math nice and simple.

Well, first off, all life is based on 4 nucleic acids, and four is 2x2. In fact, there are two nucleic acid pairs which always pair together. Therefore, my divine number appears as the basis for all units of life.

Also, there are twenty amino acids. Again, two seems prominent. But in the human body (if I remember correctly), there are two (again!) types of amino acids; those the body can produce (14, a multiple of two and seven), and those we need to eat (six, a multiple of two and three. And look again! Seven is almost two times three!).

There are two main forms of energy in our diet, sugar and fat (with protein only being an emergency food supply, since it's primarily used for constructing tissues, etc.). Fat stores twice as much energy as sugar. Again, a pair of twos.

We humans have two arms and two legs (plus eyes, etc.). Our forearms and legs below the knees are also made up of a pair of bones (another pair of twos). We have two genders for reproduction. In fact, symmetry (having two sides as close to the same as possible) is a major factor of beauty. So beauty is symmetry (an equal pairing of features) for interactions between two genders!

Two triangles make a rectangle, which has two pairs of equal sides. A rectangle fits perfectly in a circle, connecting at four points, which is just two times two.

My upper arm as a proportion of my entire arm, from shoulder to wrist, is about 1:2. My hand as a proportion of my forearm (wrist to elbow) is also about 1:2. My hand as a proportion of my lower arm is also 1:2. My leg versus my entire body is about 1:2. My foot (bottom) versus my shin (knee to heel, measured using my shoe) is also 1:2.

I've given examples from the chemical basis of life, proportions using my own body, and the basics of geometry. All using a number I pulled out of midair. There's no reason I couldn't use 3, or 2.51 if I had more patience and a tape measure, or any other number. You see? By just looking around and taking all the proportions and such that give me the answer I want, I can make any number a "divine number".

Phi does have properties that are important. But again, until I see statistical evidence that it shows up in too many places, and not just a list of examples, then it's just another number. Until then, there is no evidence of consequence or significance, no matter how many examples they throw at me.

This is all too real a problem in the real world (not phi, but the way people have of looking at a set of examples and ignoring statistics). In Europe, for example, there have been many tests of whether or not living near power lines cause cancer or other diseases. Now these tests are done using a 95% confidence limit, which means that if they get positive results, there's a 95% chance those results are bona-fide. But there's also a 5% chance it's just a fluke. So what happens when the test is done twenty times? 19 negatives and one positive. Guess which one gets published and recieves the media hype? The final consequence is, despite overwhelming evidence that power lines are safe, governments still fund study after study into the possible dangers... and since 5% always say there is a danger, it's not going to stop until people start looking at things statistically.

Umm... Undeniable proof that absolutely no statistical evidence for phi has ever been put forward?

All the examples given are nothing more than anecdotes. Think about it; There are literally billions of potential things about the human body that can be compared, they present you with maybe twenty. Sure, they've got good examples, and they all work out, but the examples don't mean anything without statistical significance. That's the only evidence that matters.

Say I compare the length of my finger and thumb and find the proportion to be 1.32. Is that a magic number? Of course not, it's just the answer to my measurement. What if I compare two vertebrae and find the same number? Doesn't matter, because statistically there are so many possible comparisons that some are bound to give me any answer I care to look for. All I need is the patience to look and the willingness to disregard any comparison that doesn't fit. That's the mistake creationists make, they ignore evidence they don't like, don't look for real evidence, and put forward meaningless little anecdotes about how "one time, this guy got a wrong answer using carbon-dating" or "I heard this one place has human footprints and dino footprints in the same spot".

How many comparisons result in phi using the human body? How many possible comparisons are there to make in the human body? The comparison between those two questions is the only piece of evidence that matters in this issue, and no one's even tried to address it.

You're right to point out using two for my example was a bit misleading, I should've used a number with some decimals. But even so, not all my examples can be discounted. And if you'd supply another number, I'd be willing to use it instead.

"Proving" phi false is like proving God false, by definition it can't be done. But that hardly seems to defend a notion with not one trace of statistical backing whatsoever. Anecdotes work no more for phi than they would for any other number you or I choose to market as "magic".

The laws of physics;
they seem orderly, and often comform to specific patterns (the equation for the strength of gravity with different differences and masses is the same as the equation for magnetic fields, no? I don't remember this clearly so I may be wrong)
There are particles; they behave in specific ways. etc.
Basic laws of how the universe works-

But this doesn't directly imply that a god made them, and it's very possible that they are that way for no reason. The laws of physics seem to describe the intrinsic properties of matter and energy, so the thing in question is whether or not these particles exist as they are 'because god made them that way,' or if... eh.. something else happened. Confusing.

Yes I saw this, and recorded all three parts. I loved it. And I will personally make sure to strap my friends in chairs and forces there eyes open to watch the whole three hours of it.