Printed from Chabad.org
Contact Us
Visit us on Facebook
Meet the new Chabad.org
Switch to OLD version

Deciphering Nature's Code

Print
E-mail

One day, I came upon a brilliant article, in which a rabbi was asked a question every one of us have deliberated over at one time or another. Specifically, the inquiry involved a request for proof of presence of a Creator; a method to the madness, if you will. The response was an astonishingly simplistic analogy. The rabbi brought into light the fact that when a book is written, no one questions the writer's existence and his or her intent to have written the book--that is, no one in their right mind would expect a bottle of ink to spill onto the pages of its own accord, and in such a particular way, that it would have created this book without the writer's will and effort. So, why is it that many of us find it so difficult to believe that a higher power exists?

In the process of reading this article, something in my mind clicked, and I became intensely aware of the unifying parallels between the various elements of the universe, which are presented to us every single day. Incidentally, this theory applies to any given premise--literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. But, since my area of expertise lies in mathematics, I shall share with you my outlook in mathematical terms. The basic idea is that there is a connection between everything, and through these connections, one becomes especially conscious of the deliberate order with which nature is created. And much in the way a skilled composer is required in order to effectively plot and build harmonies on a sheet of paper, there must be a force behind these very exact, proportional, and symmetrical arrangements in the environment.

So, let's look at several such examples, which by their very existence whisper, if not shout, that there is something grand at work.

Fibonacci (1175-1250) was one of the most prominent mathematicians of the Middle Ages, extensively contributing to arithmetic, algebra, geometry, as well as being credited with the introduction of the Arabic numerals to Europe. During the process of writing a mathematical handbook, Fibonacci came up with a simple mental exercise, though, interestingly enough, without attributing any particular significance to it. It was not until the nineteenth century that mathematicians began to realize the implications behind what was termed the "Fibonacci Sequence." In essence, each number generated by the Fibonacci Sequence is the sum of the two numbers preceding it. (i.e. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55… where 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 2+3=5, 3+5=8, and so on, and so forth). Seems interesting, one may say, but in what way can this sequence be associated with anything of significance?

Well, it seems that the Fibonacci Sequence is far-reaching in exceedingly unanticipated ways. For instance, most of us are familiar with Pascal's triangle, borne of the French mathematician, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Pascal's triangle is an array of numbers that is constructed by beginning and ending each new row with a one; the other numbers being formed by adding the numbers above and on either side of them. Each row represents the coefficients of the binomial (a+b) raised to a certain power:

(a+b)0 = 1
(a+b)1 = 1a + 1b
(a+b)2 = 1a2 + 2ab + 1b2
(a+b)3 = 1a3 + 3a2b + 3ab2 + 1b3

The Fibonacci Sequence reintroduces itself through the addition of the numbers indicated by the above diagram.

All right, you say. This is amusing enough, but I'm still not convinced.

In that case, let's move on to our next example. The Golden Ratio (aka Golden Mean, Golden Section, and Golden Proportion) represents the proportion of height to width, which is believed to produce the most aesthetically pleasing result. The limit of the sequence of ratios of consecutive terms of the Fibonacci sequence just happens to be the Golden Mean:

The Golden Proportion was also utilized by Leonardo da Vinci in his famed drawing of the proportions of the human body.

As if all this wasn't enough, there are endless instances in which the Fibonacci Sequence appears in nature. We can determine the number of bees in each generation of the family tree of the male honeybee using the Fibonacci Sequence: A male bee has only one parent (as it comes from an unfertilized egg), whereas the female bee requires both parents (since it comes from a fertilized egg).

Other such instances occur very frequently in flowers in terms of the number of petals:

Flower Petals
Lilies, Irises 3
Columbines, Buttercups 5
Delphiniums 8
Corn marigolds 13
Asters 21

The Fibonacci Sequence even applies to the spirals created in pine cones, and formed by the hexagonal-shaped scales in the pineapple.

The examples go on indefinitely; but through the ones sampled above, one is allowed a glimpse into the meticulousness with which the universe was formed. In this light, it would seem highly unlikely that it was an accidental occurrence, but rather, something which was carefully and precisely executed by a force greater than us. One cannot help but be humbled by such a prospect, and come upon the realization that we are here merely to decipher the code, which has been intricately inlaid into nature and has existed long before man.

Author's note: This article was written in memory and dedication to our beloved Rabbitzen Khaya Esther Zaltzman, as a fulfillment of one of her last articulated wishes.

By Dr. Sofya Nayer and Renata Zimmer
Dr. Sofya Nayer is a full professor of Mathematics at Borough of Manhattan Community College City University of New York.
Renata Zimmer is a classically-trained musician with a love for writing, and has been involved in various editorial and writing projects.
The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.
Print
E-mail
Sort By:
Discussion (18)
October 3, 2010
we've decipher all natures codes in endless glory
The entire human race must implement the unity of faiths under a single household of Abraham and problems of life will be solved
He tat is
Lome
March 18, 2009
Nature's Design
Nature's design is the intelligent selection ... it was selected and confiscated by the ancients .... period
Greig Williams
New Castle, NSW Oz
March 6, 2007
Deus Sive Natura
Having a "conscious will" is a human attribute, and thus LITERALLY attributing it to God, that cannot be described using human language and attributes is necessarily wrong.

In addition, Spinoza was declared a pantheist by people who had a very particular understanding (or misunderstanding of his teaching). He saw himself as a Jew (albeit not always too strict in practice, or so I hear).

It is imperative to understand that when Spinoza says "God or/equals Nature", he aims higher than most people can grasp. Spinoza's idea of nature is much broader (infinite) that the meaning of the word "nature" in modern English. He is not referring only to the particles and set of physical rules we now recognize and nature, but to the whole, infinite, and ultimate reason for this world. The reason whose reason for existence lies nowhere but in itself...
Dror Poleg
January 24, 2007
Einstein's G-d was G-d of Spinoza and Thomas Jefferson -- the whole Universe. He was in awe of organized and mysterious forces of the Universe combining together to form reality, but he wrote on multiple occasions that he did not believe in a personal G-d. His famous and often misquoted saying was an answer to quantum physicists and obviously false, both from the standpoint of modern physics and from Jewish point of view (G-d does play dice by giving us, especially the tzaddikim among us free choice).

Not that Einstein's opinion on G-d has any relevance or authority anyway.
AF
January 24, 2007
A fascinating piece of writing. Actually, Einstein's G-d was the G-d of Abraham--of Whom Einstein famously said--"G-d does not play dice with the universe."
maida silverman
glendale, wi
January 22, 2007
To Elchonon Kranz
Interesting factoid about Rabbi Saadia Gaon: He translated the Torah into Arabic (you might know that already). He had an on-going dialogue with Muslim scholars about, among other things, free will.

Of course, Muslims (as well as Xtianists) also lay a claim upon Abraham (who, like Rabbi Saadia, spent a lot of time in Iraq, if I remember correctly):

The point is the G-d of Abraham is the same and one G-d for everyone: Free will allowed Baruch Spinoza to go astray from observant Jewish doctrine, belief, and practice. Though his rabbi and synagogue made a public exclaimation against him, he was still a Jew, and the G-d of Abraham was still his G-d. He was, in effect, a Jew in exile ('galut', I believe it is); and Torah 'sparks' still emanated through him and enlightened the minds of the world though he may have never consciously acknowledged it. Imho.
Thomas Karp
January 22, 2007
It's not Torah vs. science.
My contention is that the Torah was not given to us to confirm science, nor to describe it; and it is unnecessary to try to prove or disprove it by any means, let alone scientifically. Instead, the Torah is an instruction manual for Jewish living. What does science have to do with how to live? When you teach a child not to play with matches, because he or she might burn themselves, is it necessary to explain the science behind it? By the same token, science still confirms that playing with matches can burn your fingers: The Torah is not anti-science, it's just a different entity under G-d. Science doesn't instruct people how to live. We only learn through it about the physical aspects of creation, and what we are able to do with elements of creation; it doesn't impart a moral compass to us, nor the means to sustain ourselves spiritually. So, it's not a matter of Torah vs. science, but of which you are going to put first in your lives. Both are still there nonetheless.
Thomas Karp
January 19, 2007
proof, science and G-d
I think we are all aware, and this article gives several examples, of how scientific knowledge, logic and methods changed with time. With it, so did the notion of proof. Thus, with time (in 100 years) we will witness new discoveries, new connections; or perhaps old ones will be found inaccurate (at some point people thought that the Earth is flat and Sun goes all around).

On the other hand, Torah had not changed in years (and I do not anticipate it will). Our level of understanding improves, and the study of Torah will go on forever.

Thus, I would not try to use scientifc methods to prove existance of the Creator. In my opninion it is a meaninless task. The purpose of science is to study the Universe and disciover its laws. To me, Jewdaism deals with moral, spirituality, concepts much more abstract than the most absract branch of science --- mathematics.

Being more abstract makes it more universal. I would say that scientific methods may find their roots in Torah, not vice versa.
Anonymous
chabadstamford.org
January 19, 2007
response to a scientific question
"Many atheists actually believe in the first point and many scientists believe that if you tug hard enough on the threads of evidence you will arrive at the single source; it's the evidence of the personal, conscious source that they have problem with."

The real question being poked at here is that the law of probablity is not enough to determine whether the universe is designed with an order and that the unlikely possiblility of spontanous combustion without any force is what at his designed the universe that we know. This seems to be a very common argument amongst many modern scientists (while decreasing in proportion) and is a serious issue that must be dealt with.

As you have said, the argument can be proven through logic but not through empiricsm, in other words, through chabad but not yet through chagas. This requires the Jews to further bring the energy of revelation into manifestation.

To give a less mystical solution, it seems that a model of a chaotic universe is a more simple way of understanding the universe. By believing that in fragments that are independat of holisitc reality of all energy existing simultaneously is much a easier idea to imagine, both in terms of reason and observation. However, because the chaotic model is more simple be it that it is extremly complex it seems that only the greatest geniuses, Lebniz, Newton, Coprenicus, Socrates, Plato, Budha, Confusisciust, Einstein etc. were able to fathom a model of a conscious universe, one that can not only be studied in a lab but is in constant motion and change.

Consciousness may be defined as an educated change and for that matter, the universe is conscious. If it were not, poisonous gases would have killed the Earth millions of years ago and there would have been no possibility for rejuvenation and if the process of rejuvenation is inherent with the randomness of the system, then it is indeed a brilliantly random system that is able to self-rejuvenated, thus the randomness as well makes educated changes. There are many other answers that I am sure you are aware of but a denial of God generally a personal matter that stems from the idea that bad can not exist with a world that is build through implicate order. However, bad is not a creation, it is a lankness, or an emptiness of energy, only energy is a creation.

It is our prupose as Jewish people to rectify all possibility of healing. While there are many problems that have no empirical explanation for the possibility of healing, with this I must conclude with the quote made by Coprenicus, "To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge”. In other words, don't make conclusions unless all possibilities are known. Keep in unbiased mind constant possibilities. More personal issues should not be repressed for all possibilities include the possibilty for positive energy and positive growth.
Ari Edson
thronhill, Ontrio
January 18, 2007
Why must creatio ex nihilo be through to a will?
"The 'something' or 'someone' who kicked everything into motion had to overcome the terrible inertness of the void- the 'great nothing.' This implies the element of 'Will' to me- the this 'creator' had to have the quality of "Will" or "Willingness", and that this quality of will implies a 'Conscious Creator', rather than an impersonal force."

Why does the first statement imply the second (something/-one kicking Universe out of the void implies will of that something/-one)?

"Technically though, it's moot to me- G-d did not create the universe "ex nihilo"- but rather, He created the universe out of Himself."

Certainly not according to Chabad Chassidus.

See Ch. 20 of Iggeres HaKoidesh (Tanya) and Ch. 9 of Mittler Rebbe's Shaar HaYichud.
AF
Show all comments
1000 characters remaining
Email me when new comments are posted.
FEATURED ON CHABAD.ORG