• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vortez

The fibonacci numbers... and god?

28 posts in this topic

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


...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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-
 
Well, where did he say "Math, therefore not God."? Or otherwise suggest that "math proves atheism" as you say in your later comment?

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.

it should make us think that we might just be the product of million of years of evolution.

That's a hardcore fundie rant right there, man. This guy is obviously some kind of holy roller. Edited by Khatharr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Philosophy isn't allowed anymore. Not since Kant and the existentialists took a fat intellectual dump on everything.

(My bad - double posted. Thought I was editing.) Edited by Khatharr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 


Thomas Aquinas isn't interesting. He is boring. He didn't ever prove anything. Assuming we accept the need for a first mover, which is an assumption and not a fact in evidence, it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic god, another assumption of facts not in evidence by Aquinas.

 

Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Edited by AltarofScience
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Isn't it crazy that he's one of the most influential writers in history?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Isn't it crazy that he's one of the most influential writers in history?


"Influential" does not equate to "right."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0