Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


The fibonacci numbers... and god?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
28 replies to this topic

#1 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2697

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:22 PM

Hi, i was just looking at some video on youtube about the fibonacci sequence, and can't help to notice how people associate god with this.

Im not trying to start a flame war or anything, so please, keep it mature, but, in my opinion, the fact that everything in nature grow according to some mathematical formula only prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow. It's nice to see that, even in biologie, mathematics still rules our existence.

 

I don't see how this is a "proof of god"... on the contrary, it should make us think that we might just be the product of million of years of evolution. Even our dna is shaped by this simple, yet powerfull formula...

 

Though?


Edited by Vortez, 12 April 2013 - 11:29 PM.


Sponsor:

#2 irreversible   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1301

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:56 PM

It's not proof. The fact that the Fibonacci sequence pops up in nature has just given rise to a slew of theories and ideas that have nothing to do with proof or fact. The same applies to the Higgs boson, which is viewed (or at least was advertised extensively by the media for a while) as the physics equivalent of proof of God ("the god particle"). 

 

The "science fact" book The Field is a prime example of the kind of ignorance that this kind of misinterpretation can lead to (in this case of the quantum field theory). There's a fundamental symmetry in nature that people tend to misinterpret, because we don't really understand it.

 

Problem is, in many cases one can't definitively disprove these claims, which tends to make them stick, simply because they sound cooler than reality.



#3 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:02 AM

Hi, i was just looking at some video on youtube about the fibonacci sequence, and can't help to notice how people associate god with this.
Im not trying to start a flame war or anything, so please, keep it mature, but, in my opinion, the fact that everything in nature grow according to some mathematical formula only prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow. It's nice to see that, even in biologie, mathematics still rules our existence.
 
I don't see how this is a "proof of god"... on the contrary, it should make us think that we might just be the product of million of years of evolution. Even our dna is shaped by this simple, yet powerfull formula...
 
Though?

Not God in a strict sense, but there are a number of rules in nature/universe that we tend to see over and over. I'd guess that there are "laws" that don't fit so much into science as they do into mathematics (statistics specifically).

#4 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4063

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:48 AM

Sometimes I'd like that some people just thought for a second "Gee, I might need a Physics Doctorate to understand this" or in this case "Gee, I might need a degree in Genetics to understand this"

 

I hold on to the idea that nothing is as simple as I might thinks it is, and if I think its simple, it means that I don't know enough of it.

 

That's my opinion on this sort of thing.


"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#5 Paradigm Shifter   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5251

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:39 AM

Fibonacci sequence describes number of pairs of rabbits which exist assuming they start breeding after 1 generation and there are no deaths

 

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibrab.gif

 

Therefore, dogs can play tennis. QED.fibrab.gif


Edited by Paradigm Shifter, 13 April 2013 - 01:39 AM.

"Most people think, great God will come from the sky, take away everything, and make everybody feel high" - Bob Marley

#6 megabaki   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:34 AM


I think OP wants to know where the first two rabbits came from.  Consult the biblical reference of your choice.
Evolution is nothing more than a mutated gene that fell in love with itself.

 

 

Fibonacci sequence describes number of pairs of rabbits which exist assuming they start breeding after 1 generation and there are no deaths

 

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibrab.gif

 

Therefore, dogs can play tennis. QED.fibrab.gif



#7 Khatharr   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2958

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:05 AM

Hi, i was just looking at some video on youtube about the fibonacci sequence, and can't help to notice how people associate god with this.

Im not trying to start a flame war or anything, so please, keep it mature, but, in my opinion, the fact that everything in nature grow according to some mathematical formula only prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow. It's nice to see that, even in biologie, mathematics still rules our existence.

 

I don't see how this is a "proof of god"... on the contrary, it should make us think that we might just be the product of million of years of evolution. Even our dna is shaped by this simple, yet powerfull formula...

 

Though?

 

So let me get this straight...

 

You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."

 

Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."


void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

#8 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2697

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:45 AM

Something like that yea...

 

i just started this topic for fun, just say what you think about it.

 

It's not just the fibonacci sequence, but also the fractals governing how everything look like that facinate me.


Edited by Vortez, 13 April 2013 - 05:47 AM.


#9 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3468

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:00 AM


...snip...

 
So let me get this straight...
 
You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."
 
Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."


where exactly is that "turning around"? if he's rejecting the idea of god in favor of math in both scenarios, isn't that staying on the same ideology concept?

Edited by slicer4ever, 13 April 2013 - 06:01 AM.

Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#10 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29353

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:10 AM

It's not proof. The fact that the Fibonacci sequence pops up in nature has just given rise to a slew of theories and ideas that have nothing to do with proof or fact. The same applies to the Higgs boson, which is viewed (or at least was advertised extensively by the media for a while) as the physics equivalent of proof of God ("the god particle").

"The God particle" was a joke name, the name was never meant to be linked to God (other than it being goddamn hard to find / important). Anyone linking it to God is doing so based just on this joke name, which is entirely backwards.
It's the same with numerical patterns, they're starting at the wrong end, without understanding, which makes the pattern mysterious, then claim mystery = God... If you start from the bottom up, you see why the pattern emerges (such as the rabbits above, or the geometry of petals, or whatever) then you've got a logical and boring explanation for why you should see some pattern at a macro level, and there's no mystery beyond the psychology behind human proficiency of spotting patterns and searching for meaning in cooincidences...

#11 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:14 AM


It's not proof. The fact that the Fibonacci sequence pops up in nature has just given rise to a slew of theories and ideas that have nothing to do with proof or fact. The same applies to the Higgs boson, which is viewed (or at least was advertised extensively by the media for a while) as the physics equivalent of proof of God ("the god particle").

"The God particle" was a joke name, the name was never meant to be linked to God (other than it being goddamn hard to find / important). Anyone linking it to God is doing so based just on this joke name, which is entirely backwards.
It's the same with numerical patterns, they're starting at the wrong end, without understanding, which makes the pattern mysterious, then claim mystery = God... If you start from the bottom up, you see why the pattern emerges (such as the rabbits above, or the geometry of petals, or whatever) then you've got a logical and boring explanation for why you should see some pattern at a macro level, and there's no mystery beyond the psychology behind human proficiency of spotting patterns and searching for meaning in cooincidences...


That is pretty spot-on. Such as the 80 - 20 rule in economics, weird how it happens.

#12 FLeBlanc   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3101

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:04 AM

Hay, guiz. r we arguing religion again?

#13 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:36 PM

Hay, guiz. r we arguing religion again?

Jein

#14 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4063

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:20 PM

Fibonacci sequence describes number of pairs of rabbits which exist assuming they start breeding after 1 generation and there are no deaths

 

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibrab.gif

 

Therefore, dogs can play tennis. QED.fibrab.gif

I agree cuz cute bunny drawings.


"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#15 Khatharr   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2958

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:55 PM

 

...snip...

 
So let me get this straight...
 
You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."
 
Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

 

where exactly is that "turning around"? if he's rejecting the idea of god in favor of math in both scenarios, isn't that staying on the same ideology concept?

 

No. It's conceptually bankrupt and thus hypocritical. That's why I was bringing it up. The existence of mathematics does not prove or disprove the existence of God. There are two ways of criticizing "Math, therefore God.":

 

1) Humans invented mathematics in order to describe certain aspects of the world. It would make as much sense to say, "English, therefore God."

2) Mathematics exists without difficulty in either a theistic or atheistic framework. It is not related to the existence of God.

 

Both criticisms apply equally to the notion that math proves atheism.

 

The Fibonacci sequence occurs in nature because it's a naturally occurring sequence. That sounds circuitous, but it's the simple fact of the matter. Humans "invented" the sequence because we saw it in nature. Nature didn't invent it because it saw someone write it on a chalkboard.

 

This kind of sensationalistic nonsense panders to ignorance from both sides of whatever bizarre debate is going on in people's minds. I'm sure in a few years some idiot will claim that the internet proves that God exists and then someone else will say that the internet proves that God doesn't exist. It's stupid. It's choosing a side in lieu of thinking.


Edited by Khatharr, 13 April 2013 - 11:57 PM.

void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

#16 alnite   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2068

Posted 14 April 2013 - 01:55 AM

 

 

...snip...

 
So let me get this straight...
 
You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."
 
Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

 

where exactly is that "turning around"? if he's rejecting the idea of god in favor of math in both scenarios, isn't that staying on the same ideology concept?

 

No. It's conceptually bankrupt and thus hypocritical. That's why I was bringing it up. The existence of mathematics does not prove or disprove the existence of God. There are two ways of criticizing "Math, therefore God.":

 

1) Humans invented mathematics in order to describe certain aspects of the world. It would make as much sense to say, "English, therefore God."

2) Mathematics exists without difficulty in either a theistic or atheistic framework. It is not related to the existence of God.

 

Both criticisms apply equally to the notion that math proves atheism.

 

The Fibonacci sequence occurs in nature because it's a naturally occurring sequence. That sounds circuitous, but it's the simple fact of the matter. Humans "invented" the sequence because we saw it in nature. Nature didn't invent it because it saw someone write it on a chalkboard.

 

This kind of sensationalistic nonsense panders to ignorance from both sides of whatever bizarre debate is going on in people's minds. I'm sure in a few years some idiot will claim that the internet proves that God exists and then someone else will say that the internet proves that God doesn't exist. It's stupid. It's choosing a side in lieu of thinking.

 

I'm glad someone else gets it too.  Mathematics, Physics, and all scientific formulas and equations are formulated by men to explain and exploit nature.  They are tools of the trade.  They don't prove nor disprove the existence of God.  It only describes the nature or the universe we live in.

 

I had a similar discussion with a friend about this.  He argued that men attributes all things mysterious to God.  He was right.  Cavemen thoughts that volcanoes erupted because the God or gods were angry.  Now that we understand volcanoes, God was removed from the volcano equation.  Now, we still attribute all things mysterious to God.  God's particle.  Fibonacci is God.  Because we have yet understood what they are!  He then argued that if we could understand anything in the universe, then there's no more God.

 

Then I said to him, even if mankind are capable of understanding the universe at their smallest forms to the largest forms, that still does not prove nor disprove God.  It's more like "Congratulations, you have mastered the Universe! [--But God is in another castle?]"

 

Attempting to prove or disprove God through scientific methods is useless.


Edited by alnite, 14 April 2013 - 01:57 AM.


#17 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 852

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:09 AM

So let me get this straight...
 
You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."
 
Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

But he didn't say that. He said "prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow". Not that god doesn't exist, but that any god doesn't have anything to do with the patterns that we observe.
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#18 Khatharr   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2958

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:34 PM

So let me get this straight...
 
You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."
 
Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

But he didn't say that. He said "prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow". Not that god doesn't exist, but that any god doesn't have anything to do with the patterns that we observe.

 

Where is this contradictory to what I'm saying, please?


void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

#19 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 852

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:48 PM



So let me get this straight...
 
You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."
 
Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

But he didn't say that. He said "prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow". Not that god doesn't exist, but that any god doesn't have anything to do with the patterns that we observe.


 
Where is this contradictory to what I'm saying, please?


Well, where did he say "Math, therefore not God."? Or otherwise suggest that "math proves atheism" as you say in your later comment?
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#20 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4975

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:14 PM

Ya might want to crack open a copy of Plato some time.  You know, the guy whence came the concept of platonic solids.  He knew a bit about mathematics and the perceived divine perfection of creation.

 

Aquinas would also be a good read if you want questions about absolute and logical proof of the divine.

 

In fact, if you're going to wax philosophical, you would do well to read what other people have had to say over the last 7000 years or so.  If nothing else, it would help you sleep and provide plenty of topics for cocktail-party conversations.  Maybe even open your mind to completely new ideas.

 

Just saying.


Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS