Patterns in Nature

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Write4U, Dec 8, 2021.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Patterns in nature (Part One)
    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.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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

    6. Formative power of sound

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Fig. 6.1 Chladni figures.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

    p.s. nebel, in this link you may find some information of interest to you.
    sculptor likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    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".
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

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

    What on earth do you mean by life being "based on" patterns?
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Chaos theory
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
    Naturally occurring patterns.

    Patterns in nature
    Types of pattern
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, in a dynamic environment they do.
    Yes, a dynamic environment that is causal to pattern forming, which we can observe.
    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!
    yes, but that is an imitation of naturally occurring frequencies (music of the spheres).
    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.
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2021
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    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.

    A conceptualisation.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    How can something be observed in the absence of an observer? That makes no sense at all.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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?
    And what are concepts based on? Thin air?
    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.
    They can be superimposed. AFAIK, very few objects can emit a single frequency.
    Fundamental Frequency
    The example I provided clearly shows the "fundamental" frequency of our sun, superimposed with harmonics and intermittent random bursts.
    I linked you to an audible video. What more do you want?
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2021
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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
    Magical Realist likes this.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


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

    A relation or function is not an axiom.
    They are theoretical models, hence concepts. Certain axioms are assumed in making the models, necessarily.
    I said no such thing.
    That's complicated, but I think it would be fair to say they are generally rooted in our experience of the real world.
    What is the fundamental frequency of our Sun? Number in Hertz, please. Then explain why.
    I want to probe your level of understanding of what you read and watch on the internet.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    Who or what is doing the codification? And who or what determines the "patterns" in that codification?
    Chladni was a man - a human being. Right?
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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:

    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.
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    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.
    James R likes this.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.
    I'll let you decide who understands what in this scenario.
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2021
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Of course conscious observers can perceive patterns as they form. But patterns can and do form without observation by a conscious observer.
    That is wrong. It can certainly detect and record a pattern, no?

    Last edited: Dec 27, 2021
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    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.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I don't need the internet to play chess.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    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.

Share This Page