Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

13 Sep 2012, 6:54 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
But this thread is more about claiming it to be proof of creationism and disturb evolution.

You can treat this thread as if it were about anything you want. I'm treating it as a good opportunity to talk about the Fibonacci numbers.

Quote:
Specially because it is just the same old watchmaker's argument. "see? This is beautiful/complex/whatever" it must have been designed.

If you're trying to debunk the watchmaker's argument, why spend time trying to say the Fibonacci numbers aren't beautiful?

I am not trying to debunk the watchmaker argument, it has been debunked by Darwin about a century ago.

I have read my posts in this thread and I never claim it not to be beautiful . but it is not godly and it is still mundane. A lot of mundane things are beautiful.







Quote:
All your arguments so far only try to shift the beauty from the Fibonacci numbers to somewhere else.
Well, the other half of what I am trying to say in this thread is this:

Fibonacci numbers are horribly overrated. Maths is full of strange numbers with strange properties that can be found in nature. All this hype about being god's signature is not deserved.

They are beautiful, but really, in maths beautiful is the norm.


Ancalagon wrote:
I'm thinking of a pair of formulas:
F(2n-1) = F(n)^2 + F(n-1)^2
F(2n) = F(n)^2 + 2F(n)F(n-1)

And there's one for combining:
F(n+m) = F(n)F(m+1) + F(n-1)F(m)


That's exactly the same the same logic that is allowed to use the matrix multiplication algorithm Your claim of these formulas being more efficient than matrixes is kind of unfounded considering they are both doing the same :/


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2012, 6:30 am

Ancalagon wrote:
For a theist (at least the flavor that I happen to be), God is the source of all truth and beauty. I probably wouldn't have put it as "the Fibonacci numbers are godly", but they are beautiful and true, so I think describing them as like 'fingerprints of God' (as in the thread title) is reasonable.




Mathematical objects such as the Fibonacci numbers are beautiful. But they are as man made as portraits by Rembrant. Both are human artifacts, both are aesthetically appealing.

ruveyn



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,128

14 Sep 2012, 7:29 am

Not sure about Vex's use of the word "mundane".



Doctor
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

14 Sep 2012, 8:05 am

Maths, being an abstract concept, would arguably exist even if neither we nor the universe had been created.

The only thing about the beauty of maths that can reasonably be ascribed to God is the fact that he gave us the ability to perceive beauty in it.

But pi would still be discernible wherever circles existed, and arguably would exist even if there were no circles (though let's not get on to the whole 'if a tree falls in the forest' argument), and so would the fibonacci sequence. They're abstract.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,525

14 Sep 2012, 9:15 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
A lot of mundane things are beautiful.

That seems like a fairly unusual way to use the word 'mundane'.

Quote:
Fibonacci numbers are horribly overrated.

Feel free to show this (as opposed to merely stating it) anytime.

Quote:
They are beautiful, but really, in maths beautiful is the norm.

I'm not contesting that.

Quote:
That's exactly the same the same logic that is allowed to use the matrix multiplication algorithm Your claim of these formulas being more efficient than matrixes is kind of unfounded considering they are both doing the same :/

If you calculate with matrices, you keep track of (and must calculate) one excess variable and one duplicate -- as I explained last time. If you optimize that out, you aren't really doing matrix multiplication anymore.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

14 Sep 2012, 9:26 am

ruveyn wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
For a theist (at least the flavor that I happen to be), God is the source of all truth and beauty. I probably wouldn't have put it as "the Fibonacci numbers are godly", but they are beautiful and true, so I think describing them as like 'fingerprints of God' (as in the thread title) is reasonable.




Mathematical objects such as the Fibonacci numbers are beautiful. But they are as man made as portraits by Rembrant. Both are human artifacts, both are aesthetically appealing.

ruveyn


Just in case you didn't realise this fibonacci 'finger print of god' stuff is the latest lame idea from the creationists to disprove evolution and prove irreducible complexity after getting their butts kicked all over the court with arguments about the human eye or bacterial flagella.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2012, 10:19 am

DC wrote:

Just in case you didn't realise this fibonacci 'finger print of god' stuff is the latest lame idea from the creationists to disprove evolution and prove irreducible complexity after getting their butts kicked all over the court with arguments about the human eye or bacterial flagella.


Rev. Paley's argument from design is like Vampires and Zombies. It just won't stay dead.

ruveyn



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

14 Sep 2012, 11:14 am

YippySkippy wrote:
Not sure about Vex's use of the word "mundane".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mundane

First definition.

Mathy sequences are an "earthly" thing. Like a Rembrandt painting or physics.

Quote:
Feel free to show this (as opposed to merely stating it) anytime.

Like I said, many of their "magical properties" come from fibonacci being a linear recurrence.

In fact, I think I have found things that are certainly more beautiful than fibonacci. Fractals as a whole are all incredibly cool examples of emergent properties. Langston's ant is crazy s**t. And the fact that Pascal's triangle and Sierpinski's triangle turned out to be so relates is golden stuff.

Fibonacci keeps appearing everywhere, but so does Euler's number.


_________________
.


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,525

14 Sep 2012, 5:53 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Mathy sequences are an "earthly" thing. Like a Rembrandt painting or physics.

This left me more confused than before. How can you call something mathematical earthly?

Quote:
Like I said, many of their "magical properties" come from fibonacci being a linear recurrence.

The 'magic properties' of many fractals come from the equations that define them. I just don't see why I should be bothered by this. What does it matter that a property is 'really' about something else? That a mathematical property exists just means that a true statement can be said about something, and it isn't the 'property' but the true statement that matters.

I don't doubt that there are many property statements that can be rephrased as a 'property' of something else, I just don't see why it's worth worrying about.

Quote:
Langston's ant is crazy sh**.

Interesting. I hadn't seen that one before.

Quote:
Fibonacci keeps appearing everywhere, but so does Euler's number.

Is this supposed to be a point against the Fibonacci numbers or for them?


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


14 Sep 2012, 6:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
For a theist (at least the flavor that I happen to be), God is the source of all truth and beauty. I probably wouldn't have put it as "the Fibonacci numbers are godly", but they are beautiful and true, so I think describing them as like 'fingerprints of God' (as in the thread title) is reasonable.




Mathematical objects such as the Fibonacci numbers are beautiful. But they are as man made as portraits by Rembrant. Both are human artifacts, both are aesthetically appealing.

ruveyn


Ummmmm, the Fibonacci numbers describe a pattern which does occur in nature. That is what we are talking about here: Naturally existing patterns describable mathematically.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

14 Sep 2012, 7:02 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Ummmmm, the Fibonacci numbers describe a pattern which does occur in nature. That is what we are talking about here: Naturally existing patterns describable mathematically.

That's a bit silly considering that Fibonacci created his sequence exactly so that he could describe a natural pattern.


_________________
.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,168
Location: temperate zone

15 Sep 2012, 5:51 am

Fine.

God put the fibonacci sequence into nature.
And we all can get smoke pot and contemplate the beauty of it.


But this same God ALSO created Pi.

Why did he play THAT nasty practical joke on us?

When God invented the circle why didnt he make it so that the circumphrence of a circle was exactly three times its diameter?

Instead - he made it so that it is that nasty irrational number that starts with 3.14, and goes on forever without any recognizable pattern creating headaches for the human race since the beginning of time.

You cant stand in awe of the fibonacci sequence without getting a Pi in your face, I say!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

15 Sep 2012, 6:26 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Fine.

God put the fibonacci sequence into nature.
And we all can get smoke pot and contemplate the beauty of it.




Numbers are abstractions, hence they are human made artifacts.

In a cosmos with no sentient beings there are no abstractions.

Just atoms and energy.

ruveyn



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,525

15 Sep 2012, 8:41 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
That's a bit silly considering that Fibonacci created his sequence exactly so that he could describe a natural pattern.

I don't think that's actually the case. Fibonacci numbers were stated as a way of predicting rabbit population, but I think that was window-dressing, rather than the intent behind them. Rabbits don't live forever, and don't have a fixed number of offspring at fixed intervals.

ruveyn wrote:
Numbers are abstractions, hence they are human made artifacts.

This makes no sense to me.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

15 Sep 2012, 8:49 am

Ancalagon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Numbers are abstractions, hence they are human made artifacts.

This makes no sense to me.

[/quote] Mathematics don't exist in nature. We can only abstract stuff we found in nature through mathematics.


_________________
.