Fibonacci numbers - The Fingerprint of God

Post Reply New Topic

It is very interesting, but what is godly about being able to add up the last two numbers to get the next one? Maybe a better example is the power of 2, because it is what made all of life begin. 1 becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 8........

But I like the fact the numbers appear in nature. But I would say it is more a sign that humanity is very good at identifying these patterns rather than a great designer exists.

Chance is your problem and the problem of a lot of faith-based people. It's one of those fundamental wire-crossings that there are two positions, its either by mere chance or by design. First of all, things just didn't "appear" at their current level of complexity and secondly natural selection is not a matter of "mere chance".

Scientists say that 99.2% of all species that have ever existed have now died out (http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/sci ... ction.html) so you're kind of in a problematic position. To use an analogy, if you built 100 houses, 99 of them would now have collapsed and the last one would be missing it's roof, a wall or its floor. I'd say that would make you the crappiest house builder of all time.

So, even if you are correct and there is a designer behind the Universe, he kind of sucks at it.

From a Wikipedia article on "Pareidolia":


... or seeing God in a series of Fibonacci numbers.

Your comment is a fairly common misconception by the scientifically illiterate. The fact of evolution and formation of the stars, galaxies etc is due to emergent properties of complex systems. Principles of positive and negative feedback at work at the atomic and molecular levels that catalyse the formation of more complex systems. A very simple example of this principle that you may understand is the formation of crystals from a saturated solution... try it for yourself, dissolve a lot of sugar in some hot water and leave it to cool slowly - observe the beautiful crystals that form. This is a trivial example of the principle; most molecules have no emergent properties more complex than the ability to form crystals. However, other molecules have much more sophisticated abilities, such as RNA to duplicate itself from an organic soup. The scope of the emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter is breathtaking in its magnitude and beauty - right up to all life on the planet; and it is all governed by simple rules of physics and chemistry but on a grand scale. No God required.

I have no trouble with the person whose appreciation of science leads them to faith in a creator. I am perfectly content with a theology that holds that an omniscient being set creation in motion with the big bang, and has sat back for the last 14 billion years to watch what resulted. In this sense, the laws of physics and chemistry; the principles of biochemistry and natural selection are all simply tools to set a framework around creation.

But I have a great deal of trouble with the person who claims that what we observe in nature proves the existence of a creator, and further, that it disproves what we have gleaned from our observations of nature.

If you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the Universe, and is both omniscient and omnipotent, then it is a necessary conclusion that God established creation with the full intention of creating people who were curious and rational, and that we would inquire into the nature of creation and understand it. If God knew--and how could God not--that human understanding would grow and change, then it stands to reason that either God would make creation opaque and unfathomable, or that the very definition of faith would be required to change with changing human understanding.

If you believe in God, and you believe that God takes delight in creation, then the true affront to God is to fail to learn, grow and understand.

If the Bible were only used as a treatise on morality (revolting though that morality might be), you would have a point; however, fundamentalists also use it as a description of natural reality. A distortion of pi is important in that sense.

Maybe "God" lost the instructions for building the universe and then just tried to do it without them. That would explain how flawed the universe is, if it had a designer. Then maybe "God" tried to cover up his mistakes by convincing primitive humans that it was their fault the Earth and universe are flawed.

Pi is never mentioned in the bible. What is mentioned is the dimensions of a particular more-or-less circular physical object. People then extrapolated, noticed that it wasn't a perfect approximation of pi, and the silliest argument against religion that I've ever heard of was born.

There are things in the bible that make life difficult for fundamentalists and others with an over-literal interpretation, but the pi thing isn't even a good argument against an over-literal interpretation.


That's like saying "what's interesting about just adding one to itself a bunch of times" and ignoring that that is exactly what the integers are, and from the integers we can get to much of the rest of mathematics.

The Fibonacci numbers are defined by just starting with 0 and 1 and adding up the last 2 numbers to get the next, but that's not all there is to them. It isn't obvious from the definition, but if you have any 2 consecutive Fibonacci numbers, you can get a pair of consecutive Fibonacci numbers from twice as far along in the sequence by using a pair of very simple formulas.

Some of genetic variation is by chance but natural selection is strictly according to physical laws. So the outcome is not a random hodge podge at all. The laws of physics are operative in every way.

ruveyn

Yes, I am aware that some people use it that way. But to myself and many others the Bible is not a math or science book and rejecting math or science because it is not in the Bible makes no sense because the Bible never claims to possess all mathematical or scientific knowledge nor does it need to to serve it's purposes as a religious scripture.

Robdemanc never said it was not interesting, just that it is not godly. And well, it is just a sequence. It is mundane.


So what? This is true for any linear recurrence (The Fibonacci sequence is a linear recurrence).

Edit: In fact, if you have any 2 consecutive Fibonacci numbers, you can get any pair of consecutive numbers next in the sequence using a formula that contains a matrix exponentiation and product. And yes, this is also true for any linear recurrence.

Since the Bible does not accurately state the details, then it is not accurate.

Since it is not accurate in the details, there is no reason to believe any of it, including any accounts relating to the alleged "Great Flood" or what allegedly happened before.

Even when the Bible mentions real locations that are known today, that only means that the writers chose real locations for the settings of their stories ... as any good writer of fiction should.

You can make as big a deal about this Pi thing as you want to but the fact of the matter is it is a silly reason to cast doubt on a religion and you will not get any Chrisitans to renounce their beliefs because of it, so there is no point discussing it any further.

It is one reason among several not to take the Bible literally.

ruveyn

A bit on the side of the topic, but as someone who has read substantial amounts of moral philosophy, I kind of find the Bible and other religious books insulting, if not the opposite of good morality as well. To me it's somewhat akin to using "Sexual homicide patterns and motives" as a textbook for sex-ed.

Yeah I KNOW, it seems all you need for atheists to scrutinize your holy book is to claim your god is perfect and infallible and he wrote it. Man!