MA'AT PHI PSYCHE

[Blaggard]

Bugger it all Blags, if we are going to talk ratio then I would rather talk about Tomkinson's schools days and his actual size scale model of an Icebreaker.

Ellis: [ in metalwork room] I say, Tomkinson what's that you're got there?

Lol that's what I call a dedication to modelling, scale model of an icebreaker scale 1:1. Goes to show there no matter how hardcore you are there are always those who can out geek you out there!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVItKzP6IBY

I wouldn't watch this it will only depress you.

Presumably the producer of BBC2 having a brainstorming session about Numberwang.

[uwot]

The philosophical question is: Does Fibonacci, or anything else for that matter, say anything about the relationship between numbers and the universe?

[Blaggard]

It says something about nature incorporating the most simple methods to adopt form, less energy equals more evolutionary fit and it also seems to be a fundamental law of nature that any process will tend towards the least energy intensive method to form anything. For example do you know why honeycombs are hexagonal? Or why sunflower heads are arranged in a golden ration, or why bubbles adopt a spherical shape?

Did you know if you drop any object it will break into roughly pi number of pieces, over time and repetition and it matters not the size or composition of the object it will aggregate to nearly pi. The question is why? I don't know the answer to that any more than I know why pi is approximately equal to 3.141... and proportional to a circle, but I know what I like and that's obscure maths, presented by hollow people, to vapid consumers, which makes no sense at all, like deal or no deal on acid.

[uwot]

Is that true of all nature? The nautilus is clearly very successful, given it's antiquity, but is that thanks to maths?

[Ginkgo]

The philosophical question is: Does Fibonacci, or anything else for that matter, say anything about the relationship between numbers and the universe?

This is just my opinion.

Some people want to say that mathematics IS The REALITY. In this situation Fibonacci is no different to those who claim Newtonian equations are the reality when it comes to a physical explanation of the world.

The prevailing orthodoxy in science would probably want to say, "yes" such equations do reflect reality. But the important question is, how does this reality stack up against science?

[Blaggard]

I think it's more likely that mathemeticians have stumbled upon a natural law of reality and incorporated it into maths. Rather than maths is reality.

"Euclid Alone Has Looked on Beauty Bare."

Maths is not a reality, it is a method of describing reality, sometimes it stumbles across a mysterious rule of nature and incorporates it into maths for example it just lo happens that the decay constant is modelled almost precisely by log(x) which is an inverse of e^x.



e^-lamda t is a logarithm or negative exponential or decay.

It's perhaps not surprising that the exponential model is quite good at modelling population growth over short periods of time, although it tends to inaccuracy over any period more than 10-100 years depending on population size and various external "random" factors.

The law as stated is that the lower the energy a system has to undergo the more likely that system will be to adopt that model.

The same can be said of then all that governs nature, and so it's hardly surprising such an expedient or pragmatic solution is found in many forms in nature.

No it's not all nature it's just extremely common for example trees can be modelled with fractal growth which is another simple reoccurring sequence related to fibonnaci type sequences.

A bubble adopts the least energy shape to volume, bees make honeycombs hexagonal because it is the most efficient shape possible for the purpose.

Did you know why the surface of a pond has such a high surface tension that some animals can walk across it? It's because as you manipulate the liquid it tries to arrange itself into the most energetically stable and hence least volume per surface area, this explains why water forms a sphere such as a rain drop, although gravity often deforms it. This doesn't mean maths by magic has stumbled upon reality, it means if you use some simple rules in maths you can produce some pretty complex models, hence chaos theory and fractals.

It just so happens that the constant coupling of electrons is:

= 7.29735257×10^−3

If the figure was much higher or lower matter would not be able to form, does that mean anything though? It's rather tautological to assume because we exist the laws of nature must be magic or divine or whatever you like to imagine explains the universe.

[uwot]

This is just my opinion.

Some people want to say that mathematics IS The REALITY.

Well, I think there may be some mathematicians who are so used to their medium, that they see patterns and connections with the same enthusiasm as WanderingLands.

In this situation Fibonacci is no different to those who claim Newtonian equations are the reality when it comes to a physical explanation of the world.

The prevailing orthodoxy in science would probably want to say, "yes" such equations do reflect reality.

I'm not sure their is any prevailing orthodoxy. In physics at least, there is the Copenhagen Interpretation which is most widely accepted, I gather. I think it may just be in the language, but if by 'reflect reality' you mean something like Blaggard when he says "I think it's more likely that mathemeticians have stumbled upon a natural law of reality and incorporated it into maths." I would agree; although I wouldn't call the way the world happens to work 'natural law', but then I'm just assuming the world just happens to behave the way it behaves.
I think a lot of the examples you give, Blaggard, demonstrate that most systems will take the easy route/follow the path of least resistance/do anything for an easy life. It is also true that, in evolutionary terms, the organism that best exploits the resources will dominate. Mathematics, some practitioners of which are organic, is presumably subject to the same impulses, hence the simplest/easiest to work with equations will be favoured. Although there are the throwbacks that like really difficult sums that serve no purpose, other than to severely hinder any chances of finding a breeding partner.
The likelihood of there being a mechanism that mediates between the 'Platonic' realm and the world, a sort of cosmic Cartesian pineal gland, I reckon is somewhere between nil and not much.

But the important question is, how does this reality stack up against science?

I've said several times that, in my view, the most likely source of the phenomena is some substance that behaves exactly as physicists described things happening. Steve Weinberg claims that most physicists assume a "rough and ready realism". The thing is, there is very little appetite for saying what that 'reality' is.

[Ginkgo]

I'm not sure their is any prevailing orthodoxy. In physics at least, there is the Copenhagen Interpretation which is most widely accepted, I gather. I think it may just be in the language, but if by 'reflect reality' you mean something like Blaggard when he says "I think it's more likely that mathemeticians have stumbled upon a natural law of reality and incorporated it into maths." I would agree; although I wouldn't call the way the world happens to work 'natural law', but then I'm just assuming the world just happens to behave the way it behaves.

Yes, I think you are probably right.

I've said several times that, in my view, the most likely source of the phenomena is some substance that behaves exactly as physicists described things happening. Steve Weinberg claims that most physicists assume a "rough and ready realism". The thing is, there is very little appetite for saying what that 'reality' is.

Upon reflection I think you is right again. Science doesn't usually worry about the ontological status of objects, mathematical or otherwise. Most scientists are probably instrumentalists. They follow the methodology because it works.