#### Write4U

**Valued Senior Member**

Is that not what I have been telling you all this time?(continued...)

Let's talk about Fibonacci and pi (again).

What are you talking about?

Look: $pi = 3.1415926535...$

Pi is not a "whole number". See those digits after the decimal point? Those are what tell you it isn't a whole number.

Time is associated with Pi? How does that work?Pi can't "revert" to a whole number, or to any number other than what it is. It is a fixed mathematical constant. Its value doesn't change over time.

Not really exactly the same value, does it?Pi can be defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It has an exact value, given above, becauseeverycircle has the same ratio of the circumference to the diameter. Defining pi this way is not the only way to define it, but all the others ways give the same value, however.

Can you clarify "a universal constant that can be used in any calculation is G=0.00458" ? What universal constant does this refer to? It appears to be meaningless as posited, no different than my example of 2 = 3 is not a true mathematical equation without additional qualifiers.Try to keep track of what you've written earlier. Remember that you asked me (post #136):

Give me a non-mathematical equation of a universal constant that can be used in any calculation.I asked you what a non-mathematical equation would look like, and your response is now "2=3". Okay, in light of that, here's my answer to your question:

A non-mathematical equation for a universal constant that can be used in any calculation is G=0.00458. Since a non-mathematical equation appears to be any equation that is incorrect, according to your example, then here is an equation for a universe constant that is incorrect. You can use it in any calculation you like. You won't get any meaningful answers, but don't let that stop you.

An equation is by definition a mathematical construct.Now, the more important question is: why did you ask for such a thing in the first place? What on earth were you thinking?

According to Tegmark there are no universal objects or patterns that do not have a mathematical value or function.And so....?

The video I linked to in post #150Sounds nuts to me. Can you please link me to an actual quote from him that says that?

So you say.All I can say is that the only mathematics we have discussed here so far has involved pi and the Fibonacci sequence, and you haven't had much of a clue about either of those, so far.

Here's the latest from you:Write4U said:

The number 1 comes before the number 2 in the chronology of time.

The universe did not start @ t2, it started @ t1.

Counting time doesn't count? That's a new one.The first thing to note here is that your comment about the universe is completely irrelevant. We're talking about counting numbers.

I'd like to see you fashion a clock without a time counting mechanism.The second thing is that there is no "chronology of time" in the counting numbers. The numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. exist out there in mathematics land as a complete concept. Time is not there in mathematics land with them.

Right , it's a meaningless proposition.There's nothing that says the number 3 comes earlier in time than the number 28.

You'd still be counting "one, two, three" forward in time.You're probably confused because whenyoucount, you say "One, two, three..." and you say the word "one" before you say "three", so you think that therefore "one" comes "before" (i.e. earlier in time than) three. But what if you count backwards: "Three, two, one, blastoff!" There, "three" comes earlier in time than "one".

There is time inherent in counting. What numbers you count is irrelevant. My claim is that time emerges simultaneous to change and does not have any measurable (countable) properties in and of itself.Can you see that there's notimeinherent in the counting numbers?

No, I am claiming that clocks track the emergence of time.You might argue that 3 o'clock comes after 1 o'clock on your clock. But in that case you're talking about events that happenin time.You're not just dealing with the counting numbers themselves. (Also, 1 o'clock comes after 12 o'clock.)

Of course it does. The Fibonacci sequence is a growth function with duration and as such it creates time in the growth process. Farmers rely on that when planting crops.For all the same reasons, there is no time ordering in the Fibonacci sequence. The number 8 issmaller thanthe number 21 in that sequence, but it does not "come before it", in the sense of being earlier in time.

Instant creationism is a religious concept. I am addressing the mathematical chronologies of universal functions.You're talking about theprocess of calculatingthere, not anything intrinsic to the resulting sequence of numbers. Can you see?

Are you suggesting that this sequence exists in reality? Part of sequential shrinkage?Look. Suppose I define a new sequence like this: xxxxxxxxx

Then, applying the rule we will find the following sequence of numbers: $21, 13, 8, 5, 3, 2, 1, 1.$

This is part of the Fibonacci sequence. Does the number 13 come before 21 in this sequence? Is it earlier in time?

There is mention of the fibonacci sequence in relation to spacetime....difference. How do spiral galaxies form in spacetime? How do spirals form anywhere inside spacetime? I submit the "golden mean" is a mathematical potential of spacetime.[/quote]No! The Fibonacci sequence hasnothingto do with spacetime. There's no mention of spacetime in any definition of the Fibonacci sequence. It isn't mentioned because it's not necessary.

Last edited: