The debate "Fibonacci in nature. Is this a coincidence is this an inevitability is this intent" was started by
an anonymous person on
May 30, 2016, 7:54 am.
2 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 1 person is on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
2 visitors agree.
Again true. I haven't read up on it too much, and I wasn't too precise with my words. What I would mean to say is if the sequence could be met with different numbers, rather than set ones like Planks constant or pi, then the separation between these numbers rather than the actual quantities could tell us the reasoning behind it. Flower petals though, maybe there's a unique property to the surfaces of the petals that we don't think to consider. For example, the design of a shark's skin can keep surfaces cleaner longer. Considering nature, it has the best examples of going around something difficult, or providing new technology.
Maybe there is a different way to map out the sequence we haven't considered, which would make figuring out its relationship among things easier.
True, such as the space between eyes, notable Pentagon arrangements of the nose and mouth muscles, it does go beyond a spiral and growth, but could that be the result that comes from growing? Like it has been said, life and energy take the path of least resistance, as it is only awareness that moves through rougher rather than simpler. We can also only speculate based on shape, as numbers are expressions and measurements of observations. Otherwise, we'd be looking at our own interpretations of an observations. For example, the petals would be observable, the numbers associated to it an interpretation. Number differences would be an observation, but an actual equation interpretation.
Preferably, we would like to say this is more than mere coincidence, and as things stand saying it is coincidence is a statement that starts and ends in the same sentence. At the very least, I would say that the sequence ratio shape, whichever interpretation you like, is a good measurement. Ever notice how the bones in your fingers are partitioned? When drawing, the golden rectangle is a good measure for sizes.
Also, why don't we just throw the word golden on any shape, number, ratio associated with the idea. A funny thing, huh?
Yeah, the idea is that the ratio is possibly based on growth, so it would be a constant in all living organisms. fractal networks allow for energy to be used inside the body, and the bigger an object is, the less efficient it typically is, along a line when graphed. Therefore, the ratio is not bound to size, but by arrangement. Somewhere the path of least resistance allows for a change in size, and if the increments on all four sides are not the same, why is that? All the shape can do is suggest, but the suggestion is that there is no smallest point, but a continued growth and shrink. The Fibonacci sequence is a circle added to a smaller circle in a manner that ties size together along the entire sequence. This pattern can be used to depict anything because of the unique position that all shapes can take, the ability to spin. If an object is perceived to turn at a midpoint it can move faster until it creates the image of a circle (2D) or a sphere (3D). Of course, the point used has to be special, as not all shapes are even on all sides.
A depiction of growth, movement, and mathematical concepts of approaching a limit meet here. That is why this concept is special. There is plenty of thoughts on this shape even being a thing of energy, but I will admit any discussion on it being more than a unique spiral involves bullshitting or imagination.
The final comment on the last comment was a reference to a series that used the golden ratio as a part of the battle mechanics, where a "golden spin" could be added to thrown steel balls on horseback. A really bizarre series.
If the universe is expanding, then at which point is the expansion originating from? If expansion were from every point, allowing for the same ratio between two sizes, it would never be noticed. An inch stays an inch, though the inch is noticeably bigger when compared to a previous size. It is possible that the growth is at a different size from the previous one, forcing the growth to fit a mold, a shape considered the smallest increment. Therefore, it would be considered not just theoretically, but provable that as there is a mass reaching closer and closer to an impossible measurement of infinity, there is a mass approaching but never reaching zero. On another note, efficiency of energy use in animals is not at an incremental increase/decrease by size, very well by surface area, how is this affected as a circle increases in size?
In a relative manner. This is all me bullshitting with some things considered.Also consider, all shapes that spin properly make a perfect circle, once you have said "I can't do it, it's impossible" four times I will teach you the golden spiral, Johnny.