Patterns in Nature

[Write4U]

During discussions, the phenomena of self-forming patterns in nature was a point of contention.
I thought it might be useful to pursue this fascinating subject a little further and perhaps get some additional input.

To get this started, this link showing naturally occurring self-organizing patterns is not only of scientific interest it is also incredibly beautiful to behold the near infinite variety of patterned objects and organisms having evolved from the initial chaos of the universal inflationary epoch.

Enjoy.
Patterns in nature (Part One)

There are five basic patterns in nature:

• spiral – e.g. sea shell, pine cone
• meander – e.g. river
• packing (units packed together) – e.g. beehive, tortoise, sand
• branching – e.g. trees
• explosion – radial pattern – e.g. snowflake, starburst, flower

Some natural objects combine two or more of these forms.

Here is a random selection of artists who use patterns from and in nature, with very brief accounts.

https://juliennedickey.wordpress.co...niverse-research/patterns-in-nature-part-one/

 

[Write4U]

And some of the formative causalities (guiding equations) of naturally self-organizing patterns

6. Formative power of sound

In the late 18th century, German physicist Ernst Chladni demonstrated the organizing power of sound and vibration in a visually striking manner. He showed that when sand is scattered on metal plates, and a violin bow is drawn across them, the resulting vibrations cause the particles to move to the places where the plate is almost motionless, producing a variety of beautiful, regular, intricate patterns.*

*Joscelyn Godwin makes an interesting comment on this phenomenon: ‘Once, passing by a crowded dance hall where rock was being played, I could not help perceiving the floor of the hall in terms of a Chladni plate, and the dancers appeared for all the world like the jumping, helplessly manipulated grains of sand’ (1995, p. 246).

Fig. 6.1 Chladni figures.

A century after Chladni, Margaret Watts-Hughes created images by placing a powder or liquid on a disk then letting it vibrate to the sound of a sustained musical note. She experimented with several musical instruments but had the most success using her voice. The particles arranged themselves into geometric shapes, flower patterns (such as pansies, primroses, geraniums, and roses), or the shape of a fern or a tree. The higher the pitch, the more complex the patterns produced; a powerful sustained note produced an imprint of a head of wheat.

Fig. 6.2 Figures generated by the voice of Margaret Watts-Hughes.

Much, much more...........

http://davidpratt.info/pattern2.htm

p.s. nebel, in this link you may find some information of interest to you.

 

[Write4U]

For a most remarkable demonstration of naturally forming patterns in water from cosmic vibrations.

Then consider that the human body is 70% water which corresponds to the 70% of water on earth.

Follow the Water:
Finding a Perfect Match for Life, 04.16.07

From ancient times, explorers have "followed the water." Water's unique chemical and physical properties are essential to human survival. Without water, basic physical processes would be impossible. Cells within the human body would die. None of the essential physical functions, such as breathing, digestion, or muscle movement could take place without water.....more

Image above: The Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS), aboard the OrbView-2 satellite, has given researchers an unprecedented view of the biological engine that drives life on Earth. Credit: NASA

About 70 percent of the human body is made up of water and, coincidentally, more than 70 percent of Earth is covered in water. Water creates an environment that sustains and nurtures plants, animals and humans, making Earth a perfect match for life in general.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydaylife/jamestown-water-fs.html

Is abiogenesis a result of harmonic vibrations, the "music of the spheres"?

It is a little amateurish, but if life is based on self-0rganizing patterns, this demonstration seems to support that notion.

 

[James R]

During discussions, the phenomena of self-forming patterns in nature was a point of contention.

Patterns don't "self-form".

Most of the examples you have given of "natural patterns" involves physical stuff being acted on by different forces and producing patterns which we identify.

A pattern, being an abstraction, cannot do anything on its own. It only exists in somebody's head.

For instance, consider, from above: "He showed that when sand is scattered on metal plates, and a violin bow is drawn across them, the resulting vibrations cause the particles to move to the places where the plate is almost motionless, producing a variety of beautiful, regular, intricate patterns."

Note how the causation goes. The violin bow causes the metal plate to vibrate. The oscillations of the plate create standing waves in the two-dimensional surface of the plate. The sand, previous scattered on the plate, gets jostled around by the vibrating parts of the plate and tends to settle into the places where the plate is vibrating the least. We humans observe the pretty lines made by the sand on the plate and identify certain symmetries and regularities, which are the mentioned "beautiful, regular, intricate patterns". Also, we inject the "beauty" and we judge the "intricacy" and "regularity".

 

[James R]

Is abiogenesis a result of harmonic vibrations, the "music of the spheres"?

No.

It is a little amateurish, but if life is based on self-0rganizing patterns, this demonstration seems to support that notion.

Since patterns can't self-organise, this idea is a non-starter.

What on earth do you mean by life being "based on" patterns?

 

[Write4U]

No.

Since patterns can't self-organise, this idea is a non-starter.

Chaos theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3

An animation of a double-rod pendulum at an intermediate energy showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a vastly different trajectory. The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions.

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws highly sensitive to initial conditions in dynamical systems that were thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1]

Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2]

The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[3] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

What on earth do you mean by life being "based on" patterns?

Naturally occurring patterns.

Patterns in nature
Types of pattern

• Symmetry.
• Trees, fractals.
• Spirals.
• Chaos, flow, meanders.
• Waves, dunes.
• Bubbles, foam.
• Tessellations.
• Cracks.

Patterns in nature are visible regularities of form found in the natural world. These patterns recur in different contexts and can sometimes be modelled mathematically. Natural patterns include symmetries, trees, spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tessellations, cracks and stripes.[1] Early Greek philosophers studied pattern, with Plato, Pythagoras and Empedocles attempting to explain order in nature. The modern understanding of visible patterns developed gradually over time..... more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

 

[Write4U]

Patterns don't "self-form".

Yes, in a dynamic environment they do.

Most of the examples you have given of "natural patterns" involves physical stuff being acted on by different forces and producing patterns which we identify.

Yes, a dynamic environment that is causal to pattern forming, which we can observe.

A pattern, being an abstraction, cannot do anything on its own. It only exists in somebody's head.

A pattern is a mathematical result of a specific causality which exist independent of "somebody's head".

Here we go again. If we can observe it and measure it, it must exist in nature prior to the time we observe it!

For instance, consider, from above: "He showed that when sand is scattered on metal plates, and a violin bow is drawn across them, the resulting vibrations cause the particles to move to the places where the plate is almost motionless, producing a variety of beautiful, regular, intricate patterns."

yes, but that is an imitation of naturally occurring frequencies (music of the spheres).

Note how the causation goes. The violin bow causes the metal plate to vibrate. The oscillations of the plate create standing waves in the two-dimensional surface of the plate. The sand, previous scattered on the plate, gets jostled around by the vibrating parts of the plate and tends to settle into the places where the plate is vibrating the least. We humans observe the pretty lines made by the sand on the plate and identify certain symmetries and regularities, which are the mentioned "beautiful, regular, intricate patterns". Also, we inject the "beauty" and we judge the "intricacy" and "regularity".

Yes, all of it an imitation of naturally occurring phenomena.
The universe is full of frequencies and harmonics. Note that most of the intricate patterns occur at higher frequencies which are hidden harmonics or rhythmical pulses.

I'd love to see the Chladni patterns the sun's (and earth's) frequencies produce on certain surfaces.

Note that inside the main frequency there are secondary harmonics. Now imagine a universe full of suns, each with its own main frequency and harmonies that directly affect all objects within the area of influence. The universe is full of patterns caused by harmonic vibrations.

The term "music of the spheres" is not a made-up term. The universe is full with the music of the spheres. No one needs to be present to observe these processes. We discover these preexisting phenomena and imitate them. Natura artist magistra.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

As usual, you have not actually addressed the main point in my previous posts. You have the causation completely around the wrong way. You believe that patterns somehow cause physics, when it is actually the other way around.

This is right:

A pattern is a mathematical result of a specific causality which exist independent of "somebody's head".

On the other hand, the pattern itself - along with any mathematics to describe it - doesn't exist independently of somebody's head. A pattern is a concept. A concept.

Understand?

Yes, all of it an imitation of naturally occurring phenomena.

A conceptualisation.

The universe is full of frequencies and harmonics.

The universe is full of things that behave like waves, and waves have frequencies. As for harmonics, that requires a special kind of wave - a standing wave.

Note that inside the main frequency there are secondary harmonics.

You're not using the language correctly, again. A frequency is just a number - specifically a number of regular oscillations of something in a given time. Nothing can be "inside" a frequency.

Now imagine a universe full of suns, each with its own main frequency and harmonies that directly affect all objects within the area of influence.

Can you manage to actually define the "main frequency" of a sun in any meaningful way? Because this just looks like your usual sort of vaguely sciency-sounding waffle.

The term "music of the spheres" is not a made-up term.

Yes it is - just like every other term. That particular one was popularised by Kepler, if I'm not mistaken.

The universe is full with the music of the spheres.

Please define "music of the spheres", as you understand it.

No one needs to be present to observe these processes.

How can something be observed in the absence of an observer? That makes no sense at all.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

As usual, you have not actually addressed the main point in my previous posts. You have the causation completely around the wrong way. You believe that patterns somehow cause physics, when it is actually the other way around.

This is right: On the other hand, the pattern itself - along with any mathematics to describe it - doesn't exist independently of somebody's head. A pattern is a concept. A concept.
Understand?

Yes I understand. But explain to me this: Who's concept? God? Humans?

Relational values and functions are not concepts, they are axioms.
Are laws of nature concepts or axioms? Reality does not exist independent of human concepts?

A conceptualisation.

And what are concepts based on? Thin air?

The universe is full of things that behave like waves, and waves have frequencies. As for harmonics, that requires a special kind of wave - a standing wave.

Yes and standing waves create patterns.
That is why military columns must march out of step over bridges to avoid setting up a standing wave and crashing the bridge.

You're not using the language correctly, again. A frequency is just a number - specifically a number of regular oscillations of something in a given time. Nothing can be "inside" a frequency.

They can be superimposed. AFAIK, very few objects can emit a single frequency.

Non-sinusoidal complex waveforms are constructed by “adding” together a series of sine wave frequencies known as “Harmonics”. Harmonics is the generalised term used to describe the distortion of a sinusoidal waveform by waveforms of different frequencies.

Then whatever its shape, a complex waveform can be split up mathematically into its individual components called the fundamental frequency and a number of “harmonic frequencies”. But what do we mean by a “fundamental frequency”.

Fundamental Frequency

A Fundamental Waveform (or first harmonic) is the sinusoidal waveform that has the supply frequency. The fundamental is the lowest or base frequency, ƒ on which the complex waveform is built and as such the periodic time, Τ of the resulting complex waveform will be equal to the periodic time of the fundamental frequency.

The example I provided clearly shows the "fundamental" frequency of our sun, superimposed with harmonics and intermittent random bursts.

The amount of waveform distortion present giving a complex waveform its distinctive shape is directly related to the frequencies and magnitudes of the most dominant harmonic components whose harmonic frequency is multiples (whole integers) of the fundamental frequency. The most dominant harmonic components are the low order harmonics from 2nd to the 19th with the triplens being the worst.

Can you manage to actually define the "main frequency" of a sun in any meaningful way? Because this just looks like your usual sort of vaguely sciency-sounding waffle.

I linked you to an audible video. What more do you want?

Yes it is - just like every other term. That particular one was popularised by Kepler, if I'm not mistaken.
Please define "music of the spheres", as you understand it.

It isn't a symphony by
Ives, but his "unanswered question" does explain a lot about the "music of the spheres.

I believe I already mentioned this ,"To the symphony of life no one has the score."

Colours and Spectral Types: Learning about stars from their spectra

3. Emission spectrum An emission spectrum looks very different: Rather than a continuous spectrum, we see emission at specific wavelengths. You will see the spectrum shown below in red. Why ?

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET603-M05A01.pdf

How can something be observed in the absence of an observer? That makes no sense at all.

Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

[Write4U]

How can something be observed in the absence of an observer? That makes no sense at all.

This is an "observer" . The plate that responds to the various frequencies is the observer.

An observer does not need to be sentient. It needs to be responsive to stimulation. It can be an individual object or a compound system. As long as it is able to respond to an external force it is making an observation, which often can be measured and codified. In this case the Chladni pattern is visible

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Yes I understand. But explain to me this: Who's concept? God? Humans?

Humans, of course. As far as I know, God is just another concept. But I know that we humans can hold concepts in our heads and tell each other about them.

Relational values and functions are not concepts, they are axioms.

Please look up the word "axiom". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

A relation or function is not an axiom.

Are laws of nature concepts or axioms?

They are theoretical models, hence concepts. Certain axioms are assumed in making the models, necessarily.

Reality does not exist independent of human concepts?

I said no such thing.

And what are concepts based on? Thin air?

That's complicated, but I think it would be fair to say they are generally rooted in our experience of the real world.

The example I provided clearly shows the "fundamental" frequency of our sun, superimposed with harmonics and intermittent random bursts.

What is the fundamental frequency of our Sun? Number in Hertz, please. Then explain why.

I linked you to an audible video. What more do you want?

I want to probe your level of understanding of what you read and watch on the internet.

It isn't a symphony by
Ives, but his "unanswered question" does explain a lot about the "music of the spheres.

I didn't ask about his understanding. I asked about yours. It doesn't seem like you have a very good grasp on that topic, either.

This is an "observer" . The plate that responds to the various frequencies is the observer.

No. The plate is just an object that oscillates. Patterns of sand are things that we humans see on the plate. We are the observers.

An observer does not need to be sentient. It needs to be responsive to stimulation. It can be an individual object or a compound system.

Would you describe a camera as an "observer", then? Does the camera understand anything about what it "sees"? Does it form any concepts? Can it discern "patterns" in its photographs or videos?

As long as it is able to respond to an external force it is making an observation, which often can be measured and codified.

Who or what is doing the codification? And who or what determines the "patterns" in that codification?

In this case the Chladni pattern is visible

Chladni was a man - a human being. Right?

 

[Write4U]

Would you describe a camera as an "observer", then? Does the camera understand anything about what it "sees"? Does it form any concepts? Can it discern "patterns" in its photographs or videos?

Apparently you do not quite understand the concept of "observation" in QM.

Observer (quantum physics)
Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg, wrote:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[6]

Niels Bohr, also a founder of the Copenhagen interpretation, wrote:

"Far from involving any special intricacy, the irreversible amplification effects on which the recording of the presence of atomic objects rests rather remind us of the essential irreversibility inherent in the very concept of observation. The description of atomic phenomena has in these respects a perfectly objective character, in the sense that no explicit reference is made to any individual observer and that therefore, with proper regard to relativistic exigencies, no ambiguity is involved in the communication of information."[7]

Likewise, Asher Peres stated that "observers" in quantum physics are:

"similar to the ubiquitous "observers" who send and receive light signals in special relativity. Obviously, this terminology does not imply the actual presence of human beings. These fictitious physicists may as well be inanimate automata that can perform all the required tasks, if suitably programmed."[8]: 12 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

I think you may be mistaken in believing that the "observer effect" happens at the point of origin and that the observer is transmitting some form of influence on the origination of the phenomenon, but in QM an observer is only the receptor (recorder) at point of reception, preferably not human, lest the observation is influenced by subjective conditions.

 

[exchemist]

Apparently you do not quite understand the concept of "observation" in QM.

Observer (quantum physics)
Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg, wrote:

Niels Bohr, also a founder of the Copenhagen interpretation, wrote:

Likewise, Asher Peres stated that "observers" in quantum physics are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

I think you may be mistaken in believing that the "observer effect" happens at the point of origin and that the observer is transmitting some form of influence on the origination of the phenomenon, but in QM an observer is only the receptor (recorder) at point of reception, preferably not human, lest the observation is influenced by subjective conditions.

The references to "observers" and "observation" in the early formulations of QM are today generally thought of as interactions. It is the interaction of a QM system with something that determines its properties. Thus there is no requirement for a conscious observer. When quoting the founding fathers of QM it is always wise to bear this in mind.

However, it is fairly clear that James is familiar with all this - and none of it is relevant to the issue. The purpose of his question has, as I confidently expected, eluded you. The point, I think, is that patterns are something conscious observers perceive. A camera does not perceive anything, so it can't detect a pattern.

 

[Write4U]

The point, I think, is that patterns are something conscious observers perceive. A camera does not perceive anything, so it can't detect a pattern.

Well, once again, you think wrong. What makes you "think" that I am incapable of understanding where others seem actually seem to have a misunderstanding as is evident by their posts.

W4U said: An observer does not need to be sentient. It needs to be responsive to stimulation. It can be an individual object or a compound system.

and

As long as it is able to respond to an external force it is making an observation, which often can be measured and codified.

JR said: Would you describe a camera as an "observer", then? Does the camera understand anything about what it "sees"? Does it form any concepts? Can it discern "patterns" in its photographs or videos?

I'll let you decide who understands what in this scenario.

 

[Write4U]

The point, I think, is that patterns are something conscious observers perceive.

Of course conscious observers can perceive patterns as they form. But patterns can and do form without observation by a conscious observer.

A camera does not perceive anything, so it can't detect a pattern.

That is wrong. It can certainly detect and record a pattern, no?

Detect

But an infrared telescope will be able to detect this light, which has been traveling toward Earth for more than 13 billion years, essentially allowing the Webb Big Bang to look back in time.— Mary Kekatos, ABC News, 24 Dec. 2021

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detect

 

[exchemist]

Well, once again, you think wrong. What makes you "think" that I am incapable of understanding where others seem actually seem to have a misunderstanding as is evident by their posts.
and
I'll let you decide who understands what in this scenario.

Thanks, I had already decided, and this latest post of your confirms me in that decision.

And, as usual, your (inevitable and tedious) recourse to internet definitions is totally unhelpful, since it makes no reference to a pattern.

I wonder what irrelevance the roulette wheel of your mind will come up now.

 

[Write4U]

And, as usual, your (inevitable and tedious) recourse to internet definitions is totally unhelpful, since it makes no reference to a pattern.

I can't help it if you cannot follow the evidence that I provide.

Once again you have utterly failed to present anything that contradicts my posits, except vague allegations of inability to think logically and objectively.
I'd like to play a game of chess with you to see who has ability to think in complex terms.

 

[exchemist]

I can't help it if you cannot follow the evidence that I provide.

Once again you have utterly failed to present anything that contradicts my posits, except vague allegations of inability to think logically and objectively.
I'd like to play a game of chess with you to see who has ability to think in complex terms.

This is not up to your usual standard. Where is the irrelevant internet reference?

 

[Write4U]

This is not up to your usual standard. Where is the irrelevant internet reference?

I don't need the internet to play chess.

 

[James R]

Apparently you do not quite understand the concept of "observation" in QM.

Do you really think that googling a few internet articles, or wikipedia, about observation in quantum mechanics is sufficient to make you an authority on that topic? You provide an excellent example of the practical application of the Dunning/Kruger effect.

More importantly, did you even stop for a moment to consider whether we were discussing quantum mechanics at all? Did I make a single mention of quantum mechanics in my previous post - or elsewhere in this thread? The obvious answer is: no, I didn't. As usual, you're introducing another distracting irrelevancy into the conversation, apparently because you're unable to draw appropriate conceptual boundaries between different ideas. It's all stream of consciousness with you. What is important is whatever occurs to you in the moment. Never mind that you're ignoring the challenges put to you as you go off on yet another irrelevant tangent. You probably don't even recognise your utter failure to even begin attempting to address the objections to your position that have been put to you.

The actual point I put to you, before you went off on a frolic about quantum mechanics, was about patterns - in particular about who or what observes and has the capacity to appreciate what a pattern is - or even that a pattern "exists" in some sense.

Since patterns are concepts, they require minds in which to conceptualise them. A pattern is not a pattern unless there is a conscious observer to recognise it as such.

This point has not been acknowledged or addressed by you, despite my putting it to you in several different ways in this thread. Each time, you ignore or miss the main point, only to introduce some new irrelevancy.

Because you are apparently unable to distinguish mental entities from physical entities, you have come to the belief that mental entities are on the same ontological footing as physical entities. This is why you make silly claims, like claiming that mathematics can create physical things, or that patterns can cause physical changes, or that the physical universe can arise from "patterns".

No doubt, you will fail once again to understand this post and it will remain unaddressed by you.

While you think of a new irrelevant tangent to introduce to this discussion, I might as well address some of your misconceptions about quantum mechanics, I suppose. I'll do that in a follow-up post.