/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm all about determinism, but I don't really see what the golden ratio has to do with it, lol

Explain yourself?

>>9783553
The Golden Ratio indicates of a start or of a creation, aka single point in time where it all started and was "programmed" to be that way. That ratio >determines< literally everything that will happen, because it will be by it's ratio.
I don't want to come off as offensive at all, but it's kind of self-explanatory.

I thought this was a board for science. Little did I know.

>>9783549
Can agree, certain things are predetermined.
I think OP is saying since this is such a reliable macro indicator of how things will turn out, it's reasonable to believe the universe is already determined and there's no such thing as true free will.
Correct?

>>9783862
>Can agree, certain things are predetermined.
Indeed, like the fact that OP is a fag.

>>9783549
You've got it backwards. The golden ratio doesn't show up everywhere because it decides how things work, it just shows up because it's the one ratio that satisfies the condition [math]\frac{a+b}{a}=\frac{a}{b}=\phi[/math], which is a common condition of self-similar systems.

It's just like how pi keeps showing up, not because pi is magical, but because a lot of things involve circles.

>>9783549
Think about this in tema of the central limit theorem. Not every flower will follow the sequence but the average of all flowers converges on this sequence.
I wouldn’t call it determinism, I would call it the righteous path we can all choose to follow and that all living things derive pleasure from following.

>>9783549

>>9783549
>>9783898
Forgot to mention that "0" starts nothing.

1,1,2,3,5

0,0,0,0,0

0 doesn't exist.

>>9783900
I’ve always been under the impression nothing can’t come from something

>>9783900
>0 doesn't exist.

>>9784042
/sci/ will always be full of retrograde assertions like this. The only question is how far back they'll go, and this has to be the one that goes the furthest back that I've ever seen

>>9784042
In math sure why not, it' a language after all. I'm talking about "0" of nature. Is there a "0" anywhere in nature? How does nothing create something?

>>9784039
I’ve always been under the impression nothing can’t come from something.

And vice versa. This is why Fibonacci cannot start with 0. There are some that claim it can, but I fail to see how recurring 0's make anything.

>>9783890
I see. Well, I guess I asked a stupid question. What I could cling to is say that it's interesting that most things are self-similarly designed. But this means nothing really.

>>9784055
Take an empty box. Don't do anything to it. How many apples are in the box?

The integers describe real phenomena with a level of abstraction, asking for "a 0 anywhere in nature" is demanding properties that numbers don't actually have.

>>9784060
still doesn't answer his question about the concept of 'nothing'
which is understandable, let me know when anyone figures that out

>>9784062
Absolute nothing doesn't exist according to quantum field theory, but that doesn't preclude 0 from being a useful construct that applies to real-life situations.

For example, take a quantum state with one electron and one proton in it. How many tau particles are there? Zero.

>>9784060

>The integers describe real phenomena with a level of abstraction, asking for "a 0 anywhere in nature" is demanding properties that numbers don't actually have.
>The integers describe real phenomena with a level of abstraction

Hmmm, so numbers don't have the properties of "being" or the ability to explain the universe and yet they're being used to describe the universe....Why do we think it comes down to an equation?

Regardless, what abstraction does the abstraction of NOTHING describe? If numbers and math are descriptions of "phenomena" or "things" then what is "0" describing?

If we were to simplify the universe, as in make it so that it "works" in the most simple way possible, how would you do it? Would you make it never beginning or ending in self similarity, deriving the components that makes from itself or would you somehow take the abstraction of nothing and somehow turn it into something? You can't even do that , there would be nothing to work with. Also you observing "nothing" would by definition not make it "nothing" because you're in it observing it!

>>9783900
He is right though neither of the numbers in the ratio will ever be 0 or infinity

>>9783549
>The number 1.618034 aka the Golden Ratio is literally everywhere.
Wrong.
Exponential growth everywhere.

>>9784080
See >>9784059

>>9784074
> so numbers don't have the properties of "being" or the ability to explain the universe and yet they're being used to describe the universe....Why do we think it comes down to an equation?

When a system in reality satisfies the axioms of integer mathematics, it obeys the rules of integer mathematics. That's how applied math works, you check if the axioms apply in a given case, and if they do you use that part of mathematics.

>Regardless, what abstraction does the abstraction of NOTHING describe? If numbers and math are descriptions of "phenomena" or "things" then what is "0" describing?
It describes a whole bunch of phenomena or things, for example for a given system with some number of things, the state where there are 0 things describes the state where you can add n things and get the state where there are n things.
If we were to simplify the universe, as in make it so that it "works" in the most simple way possible, how would you do it?
Unified field theory.

Also, you seem to be working on the assumption that simplifications of any sort are wrong, which is a useless approach. If you can't abstract, you'll always be stuck checking a whole bunch of irrelevant details.

>>9784091
>When a system in reality satisfies the axioms of integer mathematics, it obeys the rules of integer mathematics. That's how applied math works, you check if the axioms apply in a given case, and if they do you use that part of mathematics.

So what is the equation for love?

>It describes a whole bunch of phenomena or things, for example for a given system with some number of things, the state where there are 0 things describes the state where you can add n things and get the state where there are n things.

How can you classify or describe a "thing" if you don't know what constitutes "the thing"?

>Unified field theory.

What physicality does a "field" even have?

>>9784109
>So what is the equation for love
Love is more of a qualitative thing and doesn't satisfy a simple set of axioms like the integer axioms

>How can you classify or describe a "thing" if you don't know what constitutes "the thing"

Come on man, you do this every fucking day, unless you're going to tell me you have perfect knowledge of every microscopic property of every object around you and never abstract them into just "things"

>What physicality does a "field" even have

They carry mass, energy, charge, any fundamental property really can be transmitted through fields. Their behavior governs the motion of higher-level objects like atoms and molecules. The difference between being in a strong gravitational field and a weak gravitational field can be physically felt on the body. Fields are absolutely physical and the century after we accepted that fact has been the most rapidly developing century in human history, with good reason.

>>9783549
It's really sad to see /sci/ shit on philosophy yet come up with ridiculous bullshit like this

The reason for the golden ration occurring in organic forms is simply because gene expression follows logarithmic patterns
This gives rise to fractal like structures and spirals

>ratio of our DNA
what
you clearly have an extra set of genese in your ratio

Anyway, for plants to maximise the sunlight they get they need to grow in such way that the angle of leaves must not repeat and what better way of doing that than to grow at an irrational value of angle

I'm all for determinism but the golden ratio has nothing to do with it. There are certain patterns and ratios that will predominate the universe, whether for thermodynamic or other reasons
We just live in one where it's the golden ratio
Get a grip

>>9783549
You're a simpleton who doesn't understand what determinism means. Just because the laws of physics/mathematics cause the golden ratio to exist in numerous things throughout nature, doesn't negate the existence of quantum randomness, and doesn't mean that absolutely every event is predetermined.

>>9783549
>The number 1.618034 aka the Golden Ratio is literally everywhere. It's the ratio of our DNA, hurricanes, galaxies, atoms, paintings by Da Vinci, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, pyramids, Taj Mahal, plants and flowers micro-details and etc. It's everywhere and it's the basic ratio of everything.
Wrong.

>Even the consequential Fibonacci numbers have the golden ratio and they are ascending from 0 to infinity which is alike as the creation of the everything. From 0 (Big Bang) to infinity.
So does 0,1,2,3,4.... or any increasing sequence that goes to infinity. Has nothing to do with reality or the big bang. This is irrelevant nonsense and you sound mentally ill.

>>9784142
>It's really sad to see /sci/ shit on philosophy yet come up with ridiculous bullshit like this
The ridiculous bullshit in OP is philosophy and deserves to be shit on.

>>9784138
>Love is more of a qualitative thing and doesn't satisfy a simple set of axioms like the integer axioms

So math can't solve everything, therefore the universe would obviously not use math to create things.

>They carry mass, energy, charge, any fundamental property really can be transmitted through fields

>physicality

>Fields are absolutely physical and the century after we accepted that fact has been the most rapidly developing century in human history, with good reason.

Really, because so far you have not named one physical attribute that a field has. What a field does vs what it is composed of are not the same question. Also it's not the job of science to "accept facts", it's to question them.

Mass is dependent coherency and "gravity" which current has no accepted definition, in fact some confuse it as a force. An acceleration is not a force.

energy simply is matter and light (both are basically the same modality).

>>9784167
>>9783549

>>9784389
>Energy and mass are unphysical

I'd love to hear your definition of "physical" then, since analyzing scalars and vectors like energy, momentum, mass, etc. is how physics makes predictions.

>>9784402
>I'd love to hear your definition of "physical" then

I never said stuff was physical.

>since analyzing scalars and vectors like energy, momentum, mass, etc. is how physics makes predictions

Just because you can predict what something does doesn't mean you know what it is. I know that where there's light there's the absence of light (shadows), that doesn't make shadows "real".

>>9784425
Now you're just debating the definition of what real means. That's a fine debate to have, but it's a philosophy debate, not a science debate. In science, we define "real" so that we can get on with life and actually do something useful.

>>9784439
>In science, we define "real" so that we can get on with life and actually do something useful.

I like how you tell me the difference between a philosophical debate vs a scientific one and then tell me that the definition of philosophy is now the definition of science.

>>9784458
No, debating the definition is philosophy. Assuming a definition so you can get on with something else is a perfectly valid thing to do when you need to move the fuck on and not waste time on philosophy.

>>9783549
>16.18034
add a ... at the end
>is literally everywhere
How so?
>the ratio of our DNA
What could this possibly mean? All I see is an article by a guy named Gary Meisner on goldennumber.net with an unsourced claim that claims that each "full cycle" of the double helix is 34 angstroms long and 21 angstroms wide, two fibonacci numbers and so approximately Phi.

>It's the basic ratio of everything?

[citation needed]

>From 0 (Big Bang) to infinity

Lol, what does this even mean?

>I can't see a way around but to acknowledge the reality of determinism

How would this even be argued?

>>9784461
>No, debating the definition is philosophy

Wrong. Philosophy is the basis of science. It is the love of wisdom. The study of reification, problems concerning existence. The process used could be debating yes, but that is only because there is no authority on such matters. It relies on observations and discourse. Science is a BRANCH of philosophy that deals with systematic and methodical approaches to observation. It does so using math and experimentation, but in the end it is still dealing with observations.

>Assuming a definition so you can get on with something else is a perfectly valid thing to do when you need to move the fuck on and not waste time on philosophy.

Science would be out of a job if it wasn't for philosophy.

>>9784402
Don't feed the schizo.