Reviews for SS - The Math of God

[Nintendo-pie]

Proof and philosophy doesn't sit well with me.

While a lot of the geometry stuff is very old knowledge, it's still interesting and you illustrated them well, however the spiritual fluff you throw in there at times kind of disappoints me. To me it looks like you have used a rather sneaky tactic of using cold hard mathematical proofs to push much less grounded religio-spiritual hypothesis. It's like saying "Hey, here's a bunch of interesting proven maths. Now here's a philosophical hypothesis which must be true because that mathematical stuff I talked about earlier was true."
I just ask people not to jump on the bandwagon and blindly accept that this guy must know what he's talking about because he knows a lot of facts. A little scepticism and reading some peer reviewed research should be done before accepting anything as true. I guess that goes for what I'm saying too.

Also, the rating accompanying this comment is no reflection on the flash. I merely gave it 5 in order to post my comment. To be perfectly honest I don't know what to rate this as.

[kvana]

Unscientific jibjab

Note to viewer: video contains many claims not approved by the scientific community. Four stars for the effort.

RiverJordan responds:

So because it's not approved by the scientific community, that deems it invalid? You have to understand, we've changed our understandings and ideas and theorys about the universe so many times in the last 100 years. What if this is just another aspect we haven't looked at in depth yet?

[hooya2]

You just failed a Rorschach test.

While this was well-animated and had a lot of pretty pictures, it was also chock-full of random absurdities and meaningless babble. Your line of reasoning basically seems to be 'There are a bunch of numbers, and if I draw pretty pictures with these proportions they create other proportions that are related, therefor magic'. Have you ever heard of a Rorshcach test? It's where people are shown randomly arranged inkblots and asked what they see. Of course, there is NOTHING THERE; the only thing the person sees is what they want to see.

The only part of this that seems to connect to non-mathematical reality is when you point out the repeated recurrence of the Fibonacci sequence in living things--but your explanation is all wrong. I've seen this bit of nonsense debunked before, by a professional embryologist named PZ Myers; it's not that living things are trying to imitate a divine number (that's crazy and stupid) but because of how cells differentiate in embryos. If you want to see a full explanation, with pictures to make it clearer, you can find it at his blog Pharyngula, under the title "Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini get everything wrong". The blog post is about his response to a couple of unrelated authors, but he addresses the Fibonacci sequence about halfway down--just look for the pictures of side-by-side boxes.

"A patch of cells uses molecules to signal an adjacent patch of cells to differentiate into a structure, and then together they induce a larger adjacent patch, and together they induce an even larger patch...the pattern is a consequence of a mathematical property of a series expressed on a 2-dimensional sheet, but the actual explanation for why it recurs in nature is because it's what happens when patches of cells recruit adjacent cells in a temporal sequence."

RiverJordan responds:

Haha, it sounds like he's explaining how Fibonacci works without realizing that he's actually giving it merit. Yes, we can look at it in that point of view, doesn't mean life doesn't flow towards phi and get closer and closer to it. In fact, he's proving that theory right, by explaining how it works at a cellular level.

[Faires]

...hmm maybe it's just me..

...but I don't like this obscure theorys about sky and gods and human being and shit...

sorry pal..

well animated and good thoughts in there but..
not my arena of animation..

sry... :(

[bluehazarus]

Think twice

Mathematical is no proof to natural phenomena. It is only an tautological system.

Wiki: A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another self-referentially.