To know about numbers is mathematics. In an earlier post you wrote about languages (with reference to Hayakawa). Try to think mathematics as a language - a system of description. Objects exist whether there are Bobs to describe them - and have attributes. Your beloved snowflake is there (or is not) and has its attributes, it is the Bobs that describe it as having 6 six sides and/or being a snowflake. Both descriptions are valid - within the very system of description, in binary system the snowflake has 100 sides and in Finnish it is not called snowflake at all. QOD: there are no numbers in nature (and the concept of numbers is meaningless outside mathematics). One would think that for a photographer it would be easy to see the difference between the object and a photograph of it (a description of the object). All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 29. joulukuuta 2002 23:34 Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section >It is clear that we are not communicating. I have no idea why an object has >to know anything about it's attributes for it to have those attributes. > >Again, nothing helpful - as usuall. > >Bob.... >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" > - Benjamin Franklin > >From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> No, even if there are 6 sides in a number of snowflakes, the number is not >there. The snowflake does not know it and neither does the water vapour it >is formed of. I might be wrong but we have a lot of snow here sometimes - >but no snowflake with any number has been observed. >> And "the universal constant of gravitation can be calculated" - yeah, >sure, anything can be *calculated* - but it�s not those uranium balls (i.e. >nature) doing the calculations (and how do you find uranium balls in nature, >anyway). >> I think it would be helpful to photography if we could look at it just as >it is - painting by numbers has not advanced art very much. IMHO it is the >content which proves a photo good or not-so-good. >> All the best! >> Raimo >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho >> >> -----Alkuper�inen viesti----- >> L�hett�j�: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> P�iv�: 29. joulukuuta 2002 22:07 >> Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section >> >> >> >I'm not sure I understand what you wrote but I'll give it a try. >> > >> >> Tell me one instance when a number has been observed in the nature. >> > >> >A undisturbed snowflakes (part of nature) have 6 (a number) sides, why. >> > >> >When dropping a dense (to reduce the part played by friction) object >(things >> >fall in nature as in apples from trees) they are observed to accelerate >at >> >32.17 feet per second per second. >> > >> >When two large, dense (lead or uranium) balls are hung side by side but >not >> >touching, the universal constant of gravitation can be calculated. >> > >> >Various sunflowers have a differing numbers of seed spirals. The number >is >> >always, not usually, always a Fibonacci number. >> > >> >> Lots of numbers can be found in the observations of nature which >> >> describe it - but these numbers are just descriptions. The laws are >> >> calculated afterwards. >> > >> >This would not make the laws invalid, however it's not always this way. >> >Maxwell's Laws predicted all sorts of things never observed in nature at >the >> >time but which I now use in predicting electromagnetic propagation and in >> >designing antennas. >> > >> >Einstein's Theory of Relativity was based on his notion that the speed of >> >light is constant regardless of the motion of the observers, a fact not >> >shown (measured) until after it was published. The mathematics predicted >> >strange things never before observed in nature but which were observed in >> >nature afterward. Things such as dilation of time, increase of mass in >> >objects as they are accelerated to within significant fractions of the >speed >> >of light, the bending of light as it travels past a massive object. >> > >> >It usually works the other way around because of the nature of man. We >look >> >at something and wonder to ourselves... why? How much? This is due >entirely >> >to the nature of man, not to the numbers later observed in nature. >> > >> >Now, many of us have observed that some art is held in high regard in >nearly >> >all cultures and has weathered the exceptionally well over time. Not >being >> >arrogant bastards, (at least in this respect) it is natural for us to ask >> >the question... why? >> > >> >Some have offered time accepted starting points (helpful). Others post >only >> >to tear down (not helpful). Perhaps you would now care to be helpful, >> >instead of wasting bandwidth with questions whose answers, in any form, >true >> >or false, cannot aid folks trying to improve themselves. >> > >> >Hell, I'm asking the question! Are you up to it? >> > >> >Regards, >> >Bob.... >> >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" >> > - Benjamin Franklin >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 10:47 AM >> >Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section >> > >> > >> >> It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been >> >observed in the nature. Lots of numbers can be found in the observations >of >> >nature which describe it - but these numbers are just descriptions. The >laws >> >are calculated afterwards. >> >> Next you will be arguing that nature follows photographs? >> >> All the best! >> >> Raimo >> >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho >
