Re: The Golden Ratio

On 3/16/24 1:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
 

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
>

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
>

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
>

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>

On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
<david@nomail.afraid.org>:
>

On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote

:

>

dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>

On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wro

te:

>

Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
>

dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r

Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol

den

_ra

tio

Or by design?

>
It will never be known.

>
There is nothing to know there,
>
Jan

>
The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accide

nt!

>
It hasn't happened at all.

>
You are, of course, mistaken.
>

Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
all mathematical relationships which describe observed
phenomena, is a property of physical

>
mathematical
>

  reality, no more. And,
of course, no less.

>
You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
>

Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.

>
So the integers are a property of your football scores?
"No more, and no less", like you say,
>

Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
>
If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
those relationships?

>
Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
>

Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
or otherwise, to reality. Got it.

 Good to see that you finally got it.
You may move up one level in the cave,
and forget about beating the chalk out of those blackboard erasers,
 Jan
 

I just went back and read wigner's excellent essay on"Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", which I'd never read before.  I love his last paragraph
"Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future
research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning."
It's a gift that's tricky.  The Lamb shift, the positron were "predicted" by the math, but to make the electric and magnetic fields of classical electrodynamics symmetrical, we'd need a "magnetron".  No such beast.  Even without that chimera, time advanced potentials as solutions are unphysical, but the proposed reasons are uneasy. Particularly applying this to quantum electrodynamics has (I think) not yet been explained.