The Fibonacci numbers (as an approximation of recursive Golden Ratio relationships) are actually approximately optimal for growth while minimizing the interference of subunits with each other, as with leaves on a stem catching sunlight. Since that's an emergent property of such optimization tasks, it's not too surprising to find approximations that are easily computable by growth processes. It's not like it's EXACTLY the Golden Ratio, and organisms are investing enormous resources in getting it just right. The deeper question might be "why are physical laws such that mathematical optimizations like that work?"Q.U. wrote:And while I agree, that many patterns in nature have a connection due to physical laws, like in this awesome video, most others are plain nonsense.
I'd expect that a large number written in decimal notation would have a 1/9 chance of starting with 1.JesusChrist wrote:But have any of you linked that one article that showed how likely a a big number is to start with 1? I could've sworn I read about it in io9 or something.
Sure, but to what extent can we be confident that the model accurately represents the universe?BeeAre wrote:all systems we can communicate fit into patterns we experience, so in my humble opinion, they must be related within the scope of the data we can understand, in one way or another.
i mean, it's anthropomorphizing the universe, but i argue that such an act is unavoidable, so why then avoid the conclusions one can attribute to benefit the self therein?
Well, there are different kinds of logic. It would be reasonable to apply one to reality that seems to fit.BeeAre wrote:would we then claim it is logical in some way to circumvent logic? hella fun to let this discussion circle about and see where we can go with it C:
The difference is sampling. For a random large number, it would be 1/9, but if the distribution were bottom heavy (there are more cheap things than expensive things, say) then the distribution would be heavy on smaller numbers. Consider a log scale. The part corresponding to numbers beginning with 1 is much larger than the rest, and such a distribution approximates Benford's Law as described in the link.JesusChrist wrote:I was talking about this
JesusChrist wrote:True True. And I actually do understand what you mean this time since I do have to cover said topics, unlike politics.
Val have you graduated college yet? Masters? Because you're the definition of somebody not using his full capabilities.
RuffDraft wrote:This coming from a guy who thinks that most Conservatives and rich people are evil?
BeeAre wrote:but let me be specific about my definition as a concession for you: I consider one hundred million to a billion a year in either personal income or total assets in control of moving if not able to be personally indulged in... to be RICH.
Good lord, man! Who's attacking you? I don't go out of my way to insult you in these discussions, and it boggles me as to how you can even think that. If I call you out on what I think is a misinformed idea, why does that automatically make it an insult?BeeAre wrote:i am not going to get wrangled into an argument with you about ME, because that's not the thing we're discussing. You can attack ME elsewhere.
It's hard to take that idea seriously. I can villify someone without ever speaking to them because I know them to be sinister or whatever.BeeAre wrote:Fox News and MSNBC and the majority of American Media has been the major attacker of rhetorical civility because they are ready to villify people without talking to them.
*Blink* Fears?BeeAre wrote:Let me lay your fears to rest:
But didn't you just say that they villify people without talking to them? Are they not talking to them to their faces? (lol)BeeAre wrote:I will not villify someone OR THE WHOLE OF THEIR IDEOLOGY willing to talk to me (including you, since I like to talk to you), which is what Fox News, MSNBC, etc have the opportunity to do with so many politicians, DIRECTLY TALK TO THEM, and then these media outlets waste these opportunities by villifying them and all they stand for rather than have any real sort of dialogue.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], YesterdaysLingo and 1 guest