Is there objective Truth?

[Angrboda]

Ultimate objective truth?  What exactly is an ultimate truth?  Are you now ranking truths according to some order?  The concept makes no sense.  There is no ordering of truths such that one is of higher rank than another.

Fibonacci Foolishness.

A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature. You will find fantastic claims:

   

• The "golden rectangle" is the "most beautiful" rectangle, and was deliberately used by artists in arranging picture elements within their paintings. (You'd think that they'd always use golden rectangle frames, but they didn't.)
     
  
• The patterns based on the Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and the golden rectangle are those most pleasing to human perception.
     
  
• Mozart used φ in composing music. (He liked number games, but there's no good evidence that he ever deliberately used φ in a musical composition.)
     
  
• The Fibonacci sequence is seen in nature, in the arrangement of leaves on a stem of plants, in the pattern of sunflower seeds, spirals of snail's shells, in the number of petals of flowers, in the periods of planets of the solar system, and even in stock market cycles. So pervasive is the sequence in nature (according to these folks) that one begins to suspect that the series has the remarkable ability to be "fit" to most anything!
     
  
• Nature's processes are "governed" by the golden ratio. Some sources even say that nature's processes are "explained" by this ratio.
  

Of course much of this is patently nonsense. Mathematics doesn't "explain" anything in nature, but mathematical models are very powerful for describing patterns and laws found in nature. I think it's safe to say that the Fibonacci sequence, golden mean, and golden rectangle have never, not even once, directly led to the discovery of a fundamental law of nature. When we see a neat numeric or geometric pattern in nature, we realize we must dig deeper to find the underlying reason why these patterns arise.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam

[brewer]

"The "golden rule" exists because a human said it and applied to a wish for human behavior. Please show me the golden rule in action in a petri dish."

You can whitness it everywhere, no observational equipment neccecary, just eyes to see and an ear to listen. This isn't an arbitrary sequence of numbers. It is consistent in nature.



" I see that you seem to think that you get to pick and choose the definitions as you see fit and that I must agree with them. That's not gonna happen. I'll choose "assertion", from the same website."

Are you making up your own definitions now too?

Wow, "golden rule (assuming that you mean do unto others......)" has a correlation to math? You have some big time connections to make. Something tells me that you can't or won't.
Not making up definitions, just not living by yours.

[Whateverist]

Ultimate objective truth?  What exactly is an ultimate truth?  Are you now ranking truths according to some order?  The concept makes no sense.  There is no ordering of truths such that one is of higher rank than another.

Fibonacci Foolishness.

A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature. You will find fantastic claims:

   
• The "golden rectangle" is the "most beautiful" rectangle, and was deliberately used by artists in arranging picture elements within their paintings. (You'd think that they'd always use golden rectangle frames, but they didn't.)
     
  
• The patterns based on the Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and the golden rectangle are those most pleasing to human perception.
     
  
• Mozart used φ in composing music. (He liked number games, but there's no good evidence that he ever deliberately used φ in a musical composition.)
     
  
• The Fibonacci sequence is seen in nature, in the arrangement of leaves on a stem of plants, in the pattern of sunflower seeds, spirals of snail's shells, in the number of petals of flowers, in the periods of planets of the solar system, and even in stock market cycles. So pervasive is the sequence in nature (according to these folks) that one begins to suspect that the series has the remarkable ability to be "fit" to most anything!
     
  
• Nature's processes are "governed" by the golden ratio. Some sources even say that nature's processes are "explained" by this ratio.
  

Of course much of this is patently nonsense. Mathematics doesn't "explain" anything in nature, but mathematical models are very powerful for describing patterns and laws found in nature. I think it's safe to say that the Fibonacci sequence, golden mean, and golden rectangle have never, not even once, directly led to the discovery of a fundamental law of nature. When we see a neat numeric or geometric pattern in nature, we realize we must dig deeper to find the underlying reason why these patterns arise.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam

Jorg, had you caught his reply to Irrational?

@Irrational, see above. If all the vessels capable of interpretation disapeared, these immaterial laws would still govern the universe.

Apparently he thinks objective laws actually 'govern' over objects and actors. Without first believing in magic genies, would anyone ever form the idea that rules/laws behave in this way?

[Soldat Du Christ]

Ultimate objective truth?  What exactly is an ultimate truth?  Are you now ranking truths according to some order?  The concept makes no sense.  There is no ordering of truths such that one is of higher rank than another.

Fibonacci Foolishness.

A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature. You will find fantastic claims:

   

• The "golden rectangle" is the "most beautiful" rectangle, and was deliberately used by artists in arranging picture elements within their paintings. (You'd think that they'd always use golden rectangle frames, but they didn't.)
     
  
• The patterns based on the Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and the golden rectangle are those most pleasing to human perception.
     
  
• Mozart used φ in composing music. (He liked number games, but there's no good evidence that he ever deliberately used φ in a musical composition.)
     
  
• The Fibonacci sequence is seen in nature, in the arrangement of leaves on a stem of plants, in the pattern of sunflower seeds, spirals of snail's shells, in the number of petals of flowers, in the periods of planets of the solar system, and even in stock market cycles. So pervasive is the sequence in nature (according to these folks) that one begins to suspect that the series has the remarkable ability to be "fit" to most anything!
     
  
• Nature's processes are "governed" by the golden ratio. Some sources even say that nature's processes are "explained" by this ratio.
  

Of course much of this is patently nonsense. Mathematics doesn't "explain" anything in nature, but mathematical models are very powerful for describing patterns and laws found in nature. I think it's safe to say that the Fibonacci sequence, golden mean, and golden rectangle have never, not even once, directly led to the discovery of a fundamental law of nature. When we see a neat numeric or geometric pattern in nature, we realize we must dig deeper to find the underlying reason why these patterns arise.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam

First of all i never suggested a rank.
Second, this guy you copy paste is only giving examples and non examples... And how does this at all disprove it's relevant to the topic? None. Nobody is suggesting some it's sort of cosmic conspericy, rather how precice calculations can be found in nature.

[Angrboda]

Ultimate objective truth?  What exactly is an ultimate truth?  Are you now ranking truths according to some order?  The concept makes no sense.  There is no ordering of truths such that one is of higher rank than another.

First of all i never suggested a rank.

Then what do you mean by prefacing the word truth with the word 'ultimate'?

Second, this guy you copy paste is only giving examples and non examples... And how does this at all disprove it's relevant to the topic? None. Nobody is suggesting some it's sort of cosmic conspericy, rather how precice calculations can be found in nature.

It's what's known as a teaser. I was inviting people to read a skeptical take on the Fibonacci sequence claims, not providing a quotation that itself disproved the Fibonacci sequence material. If you actually read the article, you'd know that he points out that these so called 'precise calculations' are not in fact accurate claims.

[Soldat Du Christ]

First of all i never suggested a rank.

Then what do you mean by prefacing the word truth with the word 'ultimate'?

Second, this guy you copy paste is only giving examples and non examples... And how does this at all disprove it's relevant to the topic? None. Nobody is suggesting some it's sort of cosmic conspericy, rather how precice calculations can be found in nature.

It's what's known as a teaser. I was inviting people to read a skeptical take on the Fibonacci sequence claims, not providing a quotation that itself disproved the Fibonacci sequence material. If you actually read the article, you'd know that he points out that these so called 'precise calculations' are not in fact accurate claims.

I read it.. "The golden rectangle is the basis for generating a curve known as the "golden spiral", a logarithmic spiral that is fairly well-matched to some spirals found in nature, and this fact is the source of much of the popular and mystical interest in this mathematical subject."

He is not dissmising it's relevence to nature as you can see here. Like i said, he is giving examples, and non examples. Yes these sorts of things can grow out of proportion and need to be put into perspective. I'm not making any grand claims here, i think it's rather stating the obvious.

[Aractus]

I'm giving you the benifit of doubt for now, you seem to know what you're talking about and i'd like to get to the bottom of this. But it sounds like you are touching on a entirely different topic when you start talking about physical worlds and empty space.. My claim is that math, and the fundemental building blocks of life are one in the same.

I'd rather let this article speak for my side, as it articulates what i've been trying to get across better than i possibly could. Maybe that will help us get over this language barier.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...h-excerpt/

"Giving" me "benefit of the doubt", really? Your phrasing reveals your intentions, as well as your regressive outlook on discovering new things.

Then you simply link to some random page on the internet. I can do that to:

http://aractus.com.au/
http://aractus.com/
https://blog.aractus.com/my-congratulati...ment-12550


You clearly don't understand what you're talking about when it comes to maths. I'm no mathematician mind you, but any decent mathematician would tell you that mathematics is an abstract field of study. The operative word being "abstract". You had nothing to say, whatsoever, when I informed you that the Apollo missions which landed men on the moon used Newtonian Mechanics and not Special or General Relativity. That highlights what I said in my previous post - in mathematics we use "what we can", what we think is relevant to daily life. Newtonian Mechanics was relevant, but it certainly wasn't "correct". It wasn't based on some fundamental truth, it was based on observations that meant we could be reasonably confident with the calculations for small distances and other specific areas of interest. Given the advancement in information technology over the last 50 years it would be entirely possible to land people on the moon using the calculations from General Relativity, and it would probably be preferred since the error margin would be much smaller. In 1969 and the 1970's however, IT was so limited that higher margin of error calculations with much lower processing requirements were preferred (i.e. calculations that could be performed on an ordinary pocket calculator which is about as powerful as the Apollo computers were at the time). If we didn't have Newtonian Mechanics, and we didn't know a way to simplify Special Relativity, then we wouldn't have been able to land people on the moon at that time.

[chimp3]

What if all human beings simply died at once? Tonight , for example. (Have a nice day!) What would truth be then? That is what truth is now.

[Soldat Du Christ]

I'm giving you the benifit of doubt for now, you seem to know what you're talking about and i'd like to get to the bottom of this. But it sounds like you are touching on a entirely different topic when you start talking about physical worlds and empty space.. My claim is that math, and the fundemental building blocks of life are one in the same.

I'd rather let this article speak for my side, as it articulates what i've been trying to get across better than i possibly could. Maybe that will help us get over this language barier.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...h-excerpt/

"Giving" me "benefit of the doubt", really? Your phrasing reveals your intentions, as well as your regressive outlook on discovering new things.

Then you simply link to some random page on the internet. I can do that to:

http://aractus.com.au/
http://aractus.com/
https://blog.aractus.com/my-congratulati...ment-12550


You clearly don't understand what you're talking about when it comes to maths. I'm no mathematician mind you, but any decent mathematician would tell you that mathematics is an abstract field of study. The operative word being "abstract". You had nothing to say, whatsoever, when I informed you that the Apollo missions which landed men on the moon used Newtonian Mechanics and not Special or General Relativity. That highlights what I said in my previous post - in mathematics we use "what we can", what we think is relevant to daily life. Newtonian Mechanics was relevant, but it certainly wasn't "correct". It wasn't based on some fundamental truth, it was based on observations that meant we could be reasonably confident with the calculations for small distances and other specific areas of interest. Given the advancement in information technology over the last 50 years it would be entirely possible to land people on the moon using the calculations from General Relativity, and it would probably be preferred since the error margin would be much smaller. In 1969 and the 1970's however, IT was so limited that higher margin of error calculations with much lower processing requirements were preferred (i.e. calculations that could be performed on an ordinary pocket calculator which is about as powerful as the Apollo computers were at the time). If we didn't have Newtonian Mechanics, and we didn't know a way to simplify Special Relativity, then we wouldn't have been able to land people on the moon at that time.

Actualy, you completely misinterpreted what i said, shame on you...

I'm not putting myself above correction or education, i was saying that i would entertain the idea and i'm listening to your reason.

Link to a random page of the internet are you serious? I clearly stated my intentions with that you are acting rediculous. Instead of copy pasting the entire article i linked it so you could better comprehend my stance on the subject. And i don't see anything wrong with you sharing supporting arguments through reference either...

So much emotion on this forum, was not expecting this. And i would agree with you i don't know much about "maths". But i know enough to understand that there is too much a coincidence in it's applicability to nature, if could use your example the apollo mission. Because the universe operates under the same conditions! Now maybe my issue is the missunderstanding that i keep saying math is in nature, but rather i should say it's a tool developed to better desipher the apparent 'programing' if you will, of the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

What makes you think that the universe has been "programmed", when you say apparent what do you mean - specifically- ? If it has been "programmed", why by a god, and if by a god, why by -your- god?

Bonus Q: If it has been programmed, and by a god, and by your god....why should I care?