Math, Science and Crocheting
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that Monday’s blog is influenced by the NPR program, “Oh Being” with Krista Tippett. Yesterday her guest was the physicist, Margaret Wertheim.
Listening to Dr. Wertheim talk stimulated my love of math, physics, philosophy and the resulting questions about the age-old argument of determinism vs. Free Will.
I do not recall when or by whom I first heard math referred to as a language for talking about relationships, but I do recall that it made perfect sense to me. I have always been interested in the how pieces fit together or how one part of the universe engineers or plans its visit with another part of the universe. Certainly we know that there are some very predictable patterns in the universe. Dr. Wertheim, for example, talked about the components and patterns of coral reefs. Coral reefs begin with stony corals or scleratctinians. Massive reef structures are formed with each individual stony coral organism-or polyp- secretes a skeleton of calcium carbonate.” . . .These colonies can grow very large and weigh several tons. (Google stony corals and one will get a lot more information on them from various sources). In fact Dr. Wertheim and her twin sister Christine “founded the Institute for Figuring to advance the aesthetic appreciation of scientific concepts, from the natural physics of snowflakes and fractals to human constructs such as Islamic mosaics, string figures and weaving…. The IFF’s latest project is perhaps the most beguiling strange—a coral reef constructed entirely by crochet hook, a project that takes advantage of the happy congruence between the mathematical phenomena modeled perfectly by the creatures of the reef, and the repetitive tasks such as crocheting—which, as it turns out, is perfectly adapted to model hyperbolic space.” (Ted.com/speakers/Margaret_Wertheim.
If one has ever crocheted, knitted, or quilted one knows that there are mathematical patterns both to the design and the execution of the design. At the very same time there are many factors which affects the final outcome. Even given the same person using the same tools and the same material there can be noticeable difference in the final outcome even though the overall pattern is the same.
Many other individuals such as Anne Lamott in her book, “Stitches’ uses the metaphor of the quilt to talk about how the pieces of our life fit together; how the quilting pattern and thread bring all the pieces together much as the pieces of our life fit together to form an overall pattern.
When one studies physics, particularly quantum physics, one if forced to confront both the deterministic and indeterminist patters in nature. From scienceblogs.com one reads, “4) Measurement determines reality. Until the moment that the exact state of a quantum particle is measured, that state is indeterminate, and in fact can be thought of as spread out over all the possible outcomes. After a measurement is made, the state of the particle is absolutely determined, and all subsequent measurements on that particle will return produce exactly the same outcome.”
My interest in this question of free will vs. the seemingly deterministic nature of my life journey has led and continues to lead me to study such philosophers as Plato, Socrates, and Rene Descartes, Gottlob Frege and Immanuel Kant. Most philosophers are interested in the questions related to our role and place in the world. Of course, this necessitates positing some theories or suggesting a method for the thinking process itself. Thus, Gottloh Frege, the German logician, mathematician and philosopher is sometimes credited with inventing modern quantificational logic…(Wikipedia.org/wiki/philosophy_of_
mathematics)
Rene Descartes proposed that reality consists of two separate realms: a physical realm and a mental realm. (psych.utah.edu) At the time this distinction was helpful because it allowed the exploration and study of science to proceed without having to deal with some of the more confusing questions such as free will; the extent to which we are free to make moral or immoral decisions. Of course, the terms moral and immoral are themselves very relative.
As physics and other branches of science have evolved we are again finding that the question may not be free will vs. deterministic or free will vs. predestination as understood by John Calvin and others. The answer might be that:
· A great many factors affect the ability of the human brain to formulate a thought- genetics, stress, history, diet, other sources of chemical changes, and certain medical/physical conditions.
· Despite all indications to the contrary we do seem to be able to have some choices and to change behavioral patterns.
· All parts or pieces of my past life coalesces to bring me to this moment. If I changed anything in the past the present would be different. In this sense the past determines the present.
· As with the creation of coral reefs and other phenomenon in nature, there is an initial factor which sets the energy of a thought in motion but how it comes together with other forces/thoughts will vary based upon a number of factors
Obviously, if I am accurate the question of free will vs. determinism is still very muddy. It is easier for terms or we humans to think in either. Either we have complete free will and thus, can be help accountable for our behavior or we do not have free will and our amoral and cannot be help accountable.
As a person who works with/for people with so called mental illness, I am often acting as if people have the choice to choose treatment even if their brain is not working well! We, as a culture, make that assumption. Very seldom can a person legally claim mental incapacity as a reason or one’s behavior. Even when one is declared incompetent to stand trail, when one is determined to be able to understand the consequences of one’s actions, one might be brought to trial for the behavior committed while being incompetent. This is to stay that our judicial system is largely predicated on the belief that we have ability to make choices and if we make a choice deemed inappropriate by the culture can be help accountable.
Am I then saying that two plus two does not always equal four? In essence that is exactly what I am saying. At the same time I am suggesting that for all practical purpose it is important to know that the probability is that two plus two will equal four.
That is, for the theologian, the philosophers, and other “scientists” such as the person who studies the language and patterns of relationships we must allow for the possibility of new patterns creations emerging from the same process. People such as Dr. Margaret Wertheim will continue to challenge us to use all possible tools to step outside the box of what seems logical while, at the same time giving ourselves the chance to observe the crocheted version of the world or a portion of if from a new perspective.
I urge the reader to ask your local library find you a copy of Dr. Wertheimer’s latest book, Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circions, and Alternatives Theories of Everything.
=
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that Monday’s blog is influenced by the NPR program, “Oh Being” with Krista Tippett. Yesterday her guest was the physicist, Margaret Wertheim.
Listening to Dr. Wertheim talk stimulated my love of math, physics, philosophy and the resulting questions about the age-old argument of determinism vs. Free Will.
I do not recall when or by whom I first heard math referred to as a language for talking about relationships, but I do recall that it made perfect sense to me. I have always been interested in the how pieces fit together or how one part of the universe engineers or plans its visit with another part of the universe. Certainly we know that there are some very predictable patterns in the universe. Dr. Wertheim, for example, talked about the components and patterns of coral reefs. Coral reefs begin with stony corals or scleratctinians. Massive reef structures are formed with each individual stony coral organism-or polyp- secretes a skeleton of calcium carbonate.” . . .These colonies can grow very large and weigh several tons. (Google stony corals and one will get a lot more information on them from various sources). In fact Dr. Wertheim and her twin sister Christine “founded the Institute for Figuring to advance the aesthetic appreciation of scientific concepts, from the natural physics of snowflakes and fractals to human constructs such as Islamic mosaics, string figures and weaving…. The IFF’s latest project is perhaps the most beguiling strange—a coral reef constructed entirely by crochet hook, a project that takes advantage of the happy congruence between the mathematical phenomena modeled perfectly by the creatures of the reef, and the repetitive tasks such as crocheting—which, as it turns out, is perfectly adapted to model hyperbolic space.” (Ted.com/speakers/Margaret_Wertheim.
If one has ever crocheted, knitted, or quilted one knows that there are mathematical patterns both to the design and the execution of the design. At the very same time there are many factors which affects the final outcome. Even given the same person using the same tools and the same material there can be noticeable difference in the final outcome even though the overall pattern is the same.
Many other individuals such as Anne Lamott in her book, “Stitches’ uses the metaphor of the quilt to talk about how the pieces of our life fit together; how the quilting pattern and thread bring all the pieces together much as the pieces of our life fit together to form an overall pattern.
When one studies physics, particularly quantum physics, one if forced to confront both the deterministic and indeterminist patters in nature. From scienceblogs.com one reads, “4) Measurement determines reality. Until the moment that the exact state of a quantum particle is measured, that state is indeterminate, and in fact can be thought of as spread out over all the possible outcomes. After a measurement is made, the state of the particle is absolutely determined, and all subsequent measurements on that particle will return produce exactly the same outcome.”
My interest in this question of free will vs. the seemingly deterministic nature of my life journey has led and continues to lead me to study such philosophers as Plato, Socrates, and Rene Descartes, Gottlob Frege and Immanuel Kant. Most philosophers are interested in the questions related to our role and place in the world. Of course, this necessitates positing some theories or suggesting a method for the thinking process itself. Thus, Gottloh Frege, the German logician, mathematician and philosopher is sometimes credited with inventing modern quantificational logic…(Wikipedia.org/wiki/philosophy_of_
mathematics)
Rene Descartes proposed that reality consists of two separate realms: a physical realm and a mental realm. (psych.utah.edu) At the time this distinction was helpful because it allowed the exploration and study of science to proceed without having to deal with some of the more confusing questions such as free will; the extent to which we are free to make moral or immoral decisions. Of course, the terms moral and immoral are themselves very relative.
As physics and other branches of science have evolved we are again finding that the question may not be free will vs. deterministic or free will vs. predestination as understood by John Calvin and others. The answer might be that:
· A great many factors affect the ability of the human brain to formulate a thought- genetics, stress, history, diet, other sources of chemical changes, and certain medical/physical conditions.
· Despite all indications to the contrary we do seem to be able to have some choices and to change behavioral patterns.
· All parts or pieces of my past life coalesces to bring me to this moment. If I changed anything in the past the present would be different. In this sense the past determines the present.
· As with the creation of coral reefs and other phenomenon in nature, there is an initial factor which sets the energy of a thought in motion but how it comes together with other forces/thoughts will vary based upon a number of factors
Obviously, if I am accurate the question of free will vs. determinism is still very muddy. It is easier for terms or we humans to think in either. Either we have complete free will and thus, can be help accountable for our behavior or we do not have free will and our amoral and cannot be help accountable.
As a person who works with/for people with so called mental illness, I am often acting as if people have the choice to choose treatment even if their brain is not working well! We, as a culture, make that assumption. Very seldom can a person legally claim mental incapacity as a reason or one’s behavior. Even when one is declared incompetent to stand trail, when one is determined to be able to understand the consequences of one’s actions, one might be brought to trial for the behavior committed while being incompetent. This is to stay that our judicial system is largely predicated on the belief that we have ability to make choices and if we make a choice deemed inappropriate by the culture can be help accountable.
Am I then saying that two plus two does not always equal four? In essence that is exactly what I am saying. At the same time I am suggesting that for all practical purpose it is important to know that the probability is that two plus two will equal four.
That is, for the theologian, the philosophers, and other “scientists” such as the person who studies the language and patterns of relationships we must allow for the possibility of new patterns creations emerging from the same process. People such as Dr. Margaret Wertheim will continue to challenge us to use all possible tools to step outside the box of what seems logical while, at the same time giving ourselves the chance to observe the crocheted version of the world or a portion of if from a new perspective.
I urge the reader to ask your local library find you a copy of Dr. Wertheimer’s latest book, Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circions, and Alternatives Theories of Everything.
=
RSS Feed