Imagination.

[Write4U]

That is indeed a valiant attempt at imaginative writing. If only the literary skill was a little more polished, it might be provocative.
Now it's just incoherent rambling ......

 

[river]

​

Why not a cube?

Because the periodic table is not based on the cube . nor do the atomic structures of atoms .

 

[Write4U]

No...you are still missing the point..ahh my bad...

Yes, I'll be more than happy to explain it to you.

Can you be "more than happy"?

"Hey Joe, did you hear, .. they had to commit George to an institution, .. he was, .. uhhhhh, .. more than happy"

 

[Write4U]

Because the periodic table is not based on the cube . nor do the atomic structures of atoms .

Do you mean a mathematical sphere is a fundamental natural physical pattern? OK, I agree.

I think Plato missed that minor object in his analogy of idealized patterns, the Platonic solids.

Schematic view of adenovirus. The icosahedral capsid is formed by the hexon. The penton base is located at the 12 vertices and forms a non-covalent complex with the trimeric fiber. The fiber's knob domain is responsible for the interaction with the receptors.

Sphere, shape

Description

A sphere is a geometrical object that is a three-dimensional analogue to a two-dimensional circle. A sphere is the set of points that are all at the same distance r from a given point in three-dimensional space. That given point is the centre of the sphere, and r is the sphere's radius. Wikipedia

https://calcworkshop.com/volume-surface-area/sphere/

Math in Nature: Perfect Spheres

Nonetheless, a perfect sphere does appear in nature and can be seen in examples such as bubbles, water drops, planets, and atoms. ... In nature, gravity and force tend to make many things into spheres such as bubbles, planets, and atoms. If these spheres were not balanced, they would not exist. Mar 31, 2015

https://www.mathnasium.com.hk/2015/01/math-in-nature-perfect-spheres

Perfect symmetry, the ultimate mathematical object.

 

[river]

Do you mean a mathematical sphere is a fundamental natural physical pattern? OK, I agree.

I think Plato missed that minor object in his analogy of idealized patterns, the Platonic solids.

Schematic view of adenovirus. The icosahedral capsid is formed by the hexon. The penton base is located at the 12 vertices and forms a non-covalent complex with the trimeric fiber. The fiber's knob domain is responsible for the interaction with the receptors.

Sphere, shape

Description

https://calcworkshop.com/volume-surface-area/sphere/

Math in Nature: Perfect Spheres

The Physical .

 

[Write4U]

The Physical .

A virus is a physical object and not spherical, but icosahedral. Another mathematically self-organizing physical object.

Hexagonal

Do bees know math?

The regular hexagons of honeycombs might owe more to the laws of physics than to honeybees' engineering prowess. Credit: CORDELIA MOLLOY/SPL

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13398

 

[river]

A virus is a physical object and not spherical, but icosahedral. Another mathematically self-organizing physical object.

Hexagonal

Do bees know math?

The regular hexagons of honeycombs might owe more to the laws of physics than to honeybees' engineering prowess. Credit: CORDELIA MOLLOY/SPL

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13398

Write4U

The physical form is the consequence of the physical . Mathematics , in and of its self , can not form a physical thing , without reference to a physical thing .

 

[Write4U]

Write4U

The physical form is the consequence of the physical . Mathematics , in and of its self , can not form a physical thing , without reference to a physical thing .

Physical things emerge from mathematical patterns. But let's compromise and admit that this is an equation,

statement of equality between two expressions consisting of variables and/or numbers. In essence, equations are questions, and the development of mathematics has been driven by attempts to find answers to those questions in a systematic way.

https://www.britannica.com/science/equation

The Perfect Shape? Research Finally Reveals Ancient Universal Equation for the Shape of an Egg

Egg-shape has long attracted the attention of mathematicians, engineers, and biologists from an analytical point of view. The shape has been highly regarded for its evolution as large enough to incubate an embryo, small enough to exit the body in the most efficient way, not roll away once laid, is structurally sound enough to bear weight and be the beginning of life for 10,500 species that have survived since the dinosaurs. The egg has been called the “perfect shape.”

Analysis of all egg shapes used four geometric figures: sphere, ellipsoid, ovoid, and pyriform (conical), with a mathematical formula for the pyriform yet to be derived.

To rectify this, researchers introduced an additional function into the ovoid formula, developing a mathematical model to fit a completely novel geometric shape characterized as the last stage in the evolution of the sphere-ellipsoid, which is applicable to any egg geometry.

https://scitechdaily.com/the-perfec...t-universal-equation-for-the-shape-of-an-egg/

 

[river]

↑
Write4U

The physical form is the consequence of the physical . Mathematics , in and of its self , can not form a physical thing , without reference to a physical thing .

Physical things emerge from mathematical patterns. But let's compromise and admit that this is an equation,

Disagree

My thinking says that mathematical patterns emerge from three dimensional physical objects , movements .

 

[Write4U]

How nature's patterns form

This image shows the pattern on the head of a sunflower as generated by a mathematical model of plant growth. Credit: Matt Pennybacker, University of Arizona.

Patterns arise when the symmetry of a system is broken, Newell said. The similarity in patterns from system to system occur when the systems have similar symmetry, rather than because the systems are made from the same materials.

"The mathematics elegantly captures the fact that pattern structure depends more on shared geometrical symmetries than material properties, because the simplified equations for all these very different situations turn out to be the same," he said.

Newell said, "Mathematics is like a good poem, which separates the superfluous from the essentials and fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth."

https://phys.org/news/2011-02-nature-patterns.html

 

[river]

Newell said, "Mathematics is like a good poem, which separates the superfluous from the essentials and fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth."

No it doesn't .

 

[Write4U]

No it doesn't .

Tell Alan C. Newell

Alan C. Newell
Irish-American mathematician


Description

Alan C. Newell is an Irish/American mathematician and Regents Professor at the University of Arizona. He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1976 and in 2004 the John von Neumann Lecture for the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Wikipedia

 

[river]

Tell Alan C. Newell

Alan C. Newell
Irish-American mathematician
View attachment 4561

Description

Go on . Mathematics about the superfluous .

 

[Write4U]

Newell said, "Mathematics is like a good poem, which separates the superfluous from the essentials and fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth."

He is the mathematician.

No it doesn't .

Yes it does.

Go on . Mathematics about the superfluous .

Yes, mathematics separates the superfluous from the essential and fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth.

I think that was elegantly posited.

 

[river]

He is the mathematician.
Yes it does.

Yes, mathematics separates the superfluous from the essential and fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth.

I think that was elegantly posited.

But not True .

 

[Write4U]

But not True .

I disagree. Sorry.....

 

[river]

Write4U said: ↑
He is the mathematician.
Yes it does.

Yes, mathematics separates the superfluous from the essential and fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth.
I think that was elegantly posited.

But not true .

I disagree. Sorry.....

Disagree why ?

 

[Write4U]

But not true .
Disagree why ?

Because I agree with the mathematician.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
But not true .
Disagree why

Because I agree with the mathematician.

No surprise . Computers and all .

 

[Beaconator]

Everything that one knows about in one's own reality is just a figment of one's imagination.
Otherwise one would not know about it at all.

There are just varying intensities of the imagination. If one were to imagine thing x vividly enough, then the imagination of thing x would become indistinguishable from the reality of thing x. The understanding of one's own physical constructs is the only thing in one's mind which stops thing x from being imagined so vividly that it becomes indistinguishable from reality. For example, if I were to imagine, vividly enough, that I had lifted a rock with my mind, it would happen in my own subjective reality. Whether or not it would happen in other peoples realities, I do not know. However, this is the same as always, because the only thing that anyone knows is the contents of their own minds, so they can never be sure of anything that anybody else is thinking.
Your comment really hints at the philosophy of idealism, which I agree with. I agree with the philosophy of idealism because words which mean anything other than some kind of experience, are impossible to interpret, and therefore, mean absolutely nothing. This gives the form Anything other than some kind of experience=absolutely nothing. All of this is self evident, but for some reason, some people seem to get confused about it anyway, so I decided to throw some words around in order to change that.

Both sides of the argument are known. Science has only risen to the point of dashing our imagination.
but religion has esteemed us to a false sense of imagination…

neither are perfectly right.