Plato was quite bright, maybe he did put a musical scale in his writings. He believed in Platonic Love, i.e. love of the divine reflected in the mortal. It seems befitting.
Lots of shit about the Greeks recognising the golden ratio/fibonacci series, which, knowingly or not, is the basis of many great pieces of music.
I agree that it's easy to see patterns where there are none, particulaly to see relationships where there is only coincidence.
But, the fact this guy retrospectively found patterns seemingly by trial and error, doesn't in itself disprove his assertion. That this seems to factor in human ingenuity does not matter. On the other hand, if he had predicted the code, in a seemingly astonishing fashion it would be no more proven.
*The problem is that you cannot test his assertion, *unless you apply it to an as yet undiscovered piece of Plato's writing.
The validity of a theory doesn't lie in how it was concieved, but in how it survives scrutiny
Plato was quite bright, maybe he did put a musical scale in his writings. He believed in Platonic Love, i.e. love of the divine reflected in the mortal. It seems befitting.
Lots of shit about the Greeks recognising the golden ratio/fibonacci series, which, knowingly or not, is the basis of many great pieces of music.
I agree that it's easy to see patterns where there are none, particulaly to see relationships where there is only coincidence.
But, the fact this guy retrospectively found patterns seemingly by trial and error, doesn't in itself disprove his assertion. That this seems to factor in human ingenuity does not matter. On the other hand, if he had predicted the code, in a seemingly astonishing fashion it would be no more proven.
*The problem is that you cannot test his assertion, *unless you apply it to an as yet undiscovered piece of Plato's writing.
The validity of a theory doesn't lie in how it was concieved, but in how it survives scrutiny