What's the deal with this thing? Why do people impose it

File: image.png (919KB, 1186x198px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1186x198px

A E S T H E T I C

File: download.png (3KB, 337x150px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 337x150px

>>8873069

you're mathematically retarded. it's the fibonacci spiral.

>>8873110
to be fair, this in no way explains why people impose it on pictures

>>8873110
>Fibonacci spiral
>image dimensions 1280x792
>neither are close to fib numbers
>1280/792 = 1.1616...

>>8873110
I know it's the fucking Fibonacci spiral. What's so special about it?

File: image8.gif (3KB, 446x196px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 446x196px

The golden ratio

Interestingly enough, a function that solves the equation f'(t)=f^-1(t) is a f(t)=Ct^(phi) for some apropiated constant.

>>8873114
people find such proportions to have aesthetic qualities.

>>8873125
How? It's a goddamn spiral.

File: nature.jpg (200KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1000x667px

>>8873154
The golden ratio/angle is seen in nature all over, so I guess the aesthetics come from that it feel natural.

>>8873205
I don't understand the appeal. Nothing mathematical feels "natural", in my opinion.

>>8873244
But it isn't appealing because 'it's mathmetical'. It's appealing because it's [again, i guess] seen in nature, so where used to it. Just like wood texture, or the natural green colors of leaves. If feels comforting.
We can use math to get the same angle in anything if we want.

Anything can be mathmetical if you think like that as math can be applied to calculate anything.

>>8873125
There is LITERALLY no evidence of that.

>>8873269
what about
>people impose it on pictures that have no correlation to it?

people with proportions closer to the golden ratio are seen as more attractive

>>8873205
No it's not. Spirals are seen in nature all over. Almost none of them have the golden ratio.

>>8873287
do you have an example?

File: spiral.jpg (42KB, 602x294px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 602x294px

>>8873287
please be bait

The cool thing about logarithmic spirals is the relationship between the area up to a certain point, the radius at that point, and the curvature at that point. The existence of a shape with these properties demonstrates a lot of structural balance in analysis.

>>8873244
Math IS natural. It explains the very nature of literally everything. It doesn't get more natural than that.

>>8873296
I think he means """exactly""" but yeah he is autist

>>8873296
>cloud goes outside the line then inside the line
>spiral seems to follow dark part of galaxy then doesn't, then does
You are a fucking meme

>>8873294
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

File: egg.jpg (166KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 700x500px

>>8873323
it's approximate

>>8873328
I meant an example of a spiral in nature that doesn't follow the Fibonacci spiral

>>8873329
No it's not, it's just wrong.

>>8873335
Yes, look at the page.

>>8873329
>the golden ratio is seen in nature all over
>ratios sort of close to the golden ratio are seen in nature all over if I'm allowed to arbitrarily decide the position and width of the line sloppily overlayed onto the image
Great.

>>8873367
I guess circles aren't seen in nature because they are not perfect.

File: trump.jpg (47KB, 640x395px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x395px

>>8873349
>>8873367
Ok then I guess I just suck idk. Nowhere did I claim this to be an exact science, I was just trying to help find the reason people use the angle. Nature seemed like a valid reason.

File: ratio.png (849KB, 864x834px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 864x834px

>>8873328
The examples claimed to not have golden spirals seem to be approximate the golden ratio anyway? idk
(This was done extremely quickly though so whatever)

>>8873284
debunked
>>8873328
interesting, in cs 101 I did some exercises with generating spirals
also, I once talked to an art student (who wants to be a tattoo artist) and she said they are drilled on the golden ratio
>"where is the golden ratio in this picture?"
someone should let them know that it's all just hype

>>8873371
No you utter moron. There are things in nature that approximate circles because they are formed by an equidistant principle. Just as there are things that approximate a *logarithmic spiral* because they are based on a logarithmic principle. But you will be hard pressed to find a single one which has encoded within it the specific angle of the golden ratio. An approximation gets close to something for a reason. Your comparison on the other hand is simply an arbitrary error.

>>8873205
None of those are golden spirals

>>8873397
You realize I could just overlay logarithmic spirals of many other angles and get the same or better "approximation" right? So how do you claim this thing shows the golden ratio in nature specifically? It's pure selection bias.

>>8873397
Most of those have the golden spiral following the middle in one place and the edge in another. Not particularly convincing.

>>8873420
>>8873431
I don't claim anything, I specifically said 'I guess' as nobody was responding with a reason for aesthetics to this thread to help and find why people use it or find it aesthetic.
If it's indeed all just hype then we have figured that out with this thread, but nobody was responding or giving insight into it so I thought I'd give my thoughts on it. My 'claim' was just a guess.

>>8873314

No it doesn't you tard, math is just a language, one with exceptionally strict rules of grammar. It's not more natural than any ordinary language is.

File: goldenratio.png (2KB, 409x109px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 409x109px

which of these ratios does /sci/ find the most attractive?

>>8873458
I like E the most

>>8873438
>just a guess
>no that's wrong
>pls be bait
Yeah sure buddy

>>8873367
>>8873405>>8873420


>being this autistic

>>8873470
Didn't say 'wrong' was other anon
I did say 'plz be bait' because I was pretty convinced of the golden angle. Guess I was wrong

>>8873458
Why not more people responding to this.
This seems like fun.

>>8873406
the nautilis shell as well as the curled vine thing are bullshit. Golden ratio may be involved with the spacing of something in them but not the spiral. The sunflower (roughly) expresses the golden ratio in how it packs seeds together, same with the packing of leaves on the plant below it. Galaxy and hurricane are bullshit.

this explains why the seed packing thing happens. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/nature-golden-ratio-fibonacci.html

its just a matter of things fitting into an optimal space. The fib sequence is really cool and golden ratio is in lots of things in hidden ways, but yea most shit about it is pushed by astrologers or whatever the fuck trying to use it to explain their horoscopes somehow, aka 100% bullshit.

>>8873447
No, anon.
Math is not a language.
Math can be and often is expressed in multiple different types of math languages.
Math is that which is expressed through these languages, is that which is known and measured and observed.
Math is reality and reality is math, and if you cannot reduce something, anything, to math, it's because it's not yet fully understood (by you or by mankind in general) and/or you don't have a powerful enough computer or an exhaustive enough script.

>>8873508

Math is a game of symbol manipulation, with set rules (axioms) that are chosen because they produce useful or interesting results, NOT because they conform to reality-as-she-is. A better analogy than language is card games. Poker has its axioms, its variables, and its rules of play, but these exist because when you play by them, it produces an enjoyable game. This is exactly how mathematics works, only with "useful / interesting" in place of enjoyable.

>>8873517
No, math is that which is expressed through these languages, that which is known and measured and observed.

>>8873517
>Math is a game of symbol manipulation
people have been doing fairly sophisticated math way before ZFC came along. you're wrong. math is not the language used to write math.

it's like saying literature is a game of symbol manipulation. it's true only in the most retarded, simplistic, useless sense

>>8873517
right.

Reality as we know it is just a very huge very complex mathematical system. That mathematical system we call "physics" which also has axioms like c or planck's constant.

>>8873472
>hurr I got BTFO better call him autistic

>>8873530
>being this autistic

>>8873529
you're retarded
math is not science and science is not math. there's a fundamental distinction between proceeding through convention in useful first principles and proceeding through fitting the available data

>>8873508
I haven't heard bullshit like that in quite a while.
That's what happens if you have little kiddos on a sci-board who neither have a clue about science nor the philosophy of science.
And I'm not even the guy, you're replying to.

>>8873536
>science without math
polisci?

File: 1.jpg (118KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x500px

>>8873329

>>8873525
>math is not the language used to write math.

Yes it is, just as English is the language used to write English.

>it's like saying literature is a game of symbol manipulation.

Completely accurate?

> it's true only in the most retarded, simplistic, useless sense

I don't think you know what any of those words means. Go back to bed, kiddo.

>>8873536
no u

you're right science and math are two different things. Science is the process of figuring out the math of the system you're in, math can be used for that if you're interested in the mathematical science of that system. In our case its physics. Physics isn't math, but its a science of determining what reality is that uses math.

Practicing math = creating systems and exploring what they entail etc

Science = recognizing we're in some huge complex mathematical system and we don't know how it really works, so use whatever we can in the system to try to determine things about it.

We don't actually know what system we're in at all, just that we're in one. We have to work backwards.

File: main-qimg-4ac0bf076120fa49f9b925d735b1578a.gif (7KB, 586x588px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 586x588px

>>8873069

>What's the deal with this thing? Why do people impose it on pictures that have no correlation to it? Am I just mathematically retarded?

Honestly all those "Look! It's everywhere!" things sound like BS to me simply because some people decided to pay a lot of attejtion to this spiral.

The beauty of mathematics lies in propositions, arguments, concepts, ideas and ultimately theorems. Not in a bunch of layered pics

File: trump-golden-ratio-fibonacci.jpg (58KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x371px

It is beautiful...

File: KrV.jpg (158KB, 1024x867px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x867px

>>8873635
>Science = recognizing we're in some huge complex mathematical system
In all seriousness, you're crossing the boarder between science and religion. That's especially sad because it's a fault that should have been corrected about 250 years ago.

You mistake a (metaphysical) system which is meant to interpret nature (or better: which is our way to interpret nature) for nature itself.
We're not "in" some huge complex mathematical system (that would be a metaphysical speculation which doesn't have any scientific value at all btw.). We use mathematical systems to interpret things around us - that's why everything seems to have a mathematical structure and everything seems to be a huge mathematical system. Not because the thing in itself has said mathematical structure - it's us who add it to the things.
We use language to interpret things and communicate about them (for example English, German, Swahili), therefore everything we can say about the world is said in certain languages - but nevertheless noone would seriously entertain the idea, the structure of the world is Swahili itself (...well ok, Kabalists have had that very idea when it comes to Hebrew).

>>8873725
*border (and maybe a lot of other typos)

>>8873572
>Yes it is, just as English is the language used to write English.
You don't use language to write language you fucking brainlet, you use orthography. English orthography is the orthography used to write the English language.
This is a map vs the territory issue.

>>8873725
This. Mathematics broadly considered is merely the set of all conceivable rule sets for abstract reasoning and symbolic manipulation. Which are more fully reasoned out as to their implications and which are left unexplored is a property of human society and not "development" of the math in itself, and which themselves are naively considered "real" things is based ultimately on empirical arguments that they correspond in some useful or immediate way to material reality. Science is the systematic process of judging this correspondence, it is a metaphysical thing. Math is purely a priori and doesn't even presuppose at its foundations that the universe exists, because this would be an irrelevant useless hypothesis.

>>8873832
>Mathematics broadly considered is merely the set of all conceivable rule sets for abstract reasoning and symbolic manipulation.
Not to be confused with "mathematics" meant as the study and interpretation of these rule systems, of course. The two are different entities but they unfortunately share the same label because precise distinction between the two is not really necessary or useful in average day to day life.

File: 1435158838-20150624.png (176KB, 684x919px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 684x919px

>>8873069
>Why do people impose it on pictures that have no correlation to it?

>>8873458
D

>>8873458
"c" is phat

t
h
i
C
C

File: the_science_behind_disgust.jpg (116KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 600x400px

>>8873508
>math is that which is known and measured and observed
What the fuck?
>math is reality
You have it all wrong. Math exists independently of the physical world, but it can be used to describe it.

>>8873911
that comic is the worst

>>8874146
Speak for yourself, popsci fucks who fancy themselves mystics contemplating some fundamental immaterial truth of the universe in staring at a mathematical object they haven't studied enough to become comfortable with and which approximates something in real life are easily worse than smbc

>>8873367
>what are approximations

>>8873832
>it is a metaphysical thing
WE WUZ WIZARDS ND SHIET

>>8873458

E is nice

>>8874216
Those are not approximations of the golden spiral. They are approximations of logarithmic spirals that are not golden.

>>8873718
WTF I LOVE TRUMP NOW!?!?

>>8873069
they do it as a meme, that's it

>>8873458
d

>>8873314

>math
>natural

Lol

File: Alan-Watts.jpg (1MB, 2267x1588px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2267x1588px

A fractal spiral is the best way to visualize the universe, you can point to your own position on the map at any point on any spiral and say you're there between quarks and galactic filaments.

>>8874222
>I have no idea what "metaphysical" means
>it's like, spooky magic or some bullshit lmao