/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10375993
Goddidit
Source: My eyes

read this

>>10375993
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

>>10375993
>symmetry

Doesn't exist in nature, because entropy.

>>10375993
symmetry requires less information to encode and is therefore more efficient

http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/abop/abop.pdf

>>10375993
noether’s theorem

>>10375993
It just werks. :^)

>>10375993
Growth and symmetry. Things that grow probably naturally grow symmetrical because of efficiency reasons.

>>10375993
>symmetry
more like fractals and self-similarity

>>10375993
No, in your brain, you find pattern recognition. That's no the same as symmetry. There's a limited amount of shapes our brain can perceive since it abstracts the information we get, doesn't have much to do with nature.

>>10377364
So why do some fractals tend towards self-similarity and others do not? What is this balance between perfect symmetry and chaotic irrational mess?

>>10377370
look up cellular automata and the edge of chaos

apparently there is only 4 classes of behaviour

Tomatoes are radially symmetric because the only direction that is different is the point where the vine attaches
Birds are symmetric because the two directions that are different is that of gravity and forwards (because you only need one head and monodirectional locomotive limbs are probably more effective than bidirectional designs)
Not sure about snowflakes

>>10377387
>Birds are symmetric because the two directions that are different is that of gravity and forwards
Technically, ancestral worms are bilaterally symmetric for similar reasons. It's tricky to introduce new symmetry planes past a certain cell count so we're stuck with whatever our ancient ancestors thought worked best.

Snowflakes, like many crystals, are just symmetry. Imagine a sealed container of water vapour below freezing. A point nucleation source is introduced to the centre. An ice crystal forms. Now, all sides of the ice crystal are equally likely to encounter water vapour, but some sides have better geometry (and therefore require less energy) for a new molecule to stick on.

>>10377387
>Not sure about snowflakes

>>10375993
To maintain balance you dumb shit?

>>10375997
Gonna try find that in the university library

>>10375993
Texture copying in the simulation that we live in.

>>10375993
God is a fan of procedural generation

>>10377368
This
probably the answer to the question asked in the thread

>>10375993
most things in nature are symmetrical because it's easier to make copies of one thing than have specifically differentiated parts. vertebrate animals are symmetrical along their vertebrae because it's how their neural network goes and it's easiest to just copy and paste one side in terms of genes for development rather than bulking in information. make an arm * 2 is less info than make a right arm like this and a left arm like this. also you have to consider that something like body plan is a highly conserved region that codes for some of the most important things, so it doesn't change much and when it does it's usually deadly or dangerous.

radial symmetry is easier than bilaterial symmetry and it's the more simple form of it, which is why you see it in everything else when it's not constrained by something like a vertebrae (most sea life that are not fish, fruits and flowers)

because asymmetry is inefficient.
most asymmetrical animal species die out because symmetrical species kill them.
stable chemicals are more often because they are symmetrical in some way (distribution of energy or some other shit)

It's better than freely spinning around an axis half, one arm acts as a counterweight for the other arm stabilizing the torso even normally, not just swinging arms when running

>>10375997
What year is this edition from?

>>10375993
the universe: balance, harmony, symmetry, homestasis... spawning from circles

>>10375997
this, but also surprised noone mentioned
old school: d'arcy thompson - growthn & form, and
newer school: alan turing - morphogenesis

>>10379219
Worth reading, yes?

>>10379219
>>10379223
Ehm, anon, which edition?

>>10375993
It just werks

>>10375993
is real purdy like

>>10378195
They don't make copies, they differentiate from the zygote according to nucleation points and chemical gradients. Body plans don't exist, it's just a carefully calibrated cascade, it would be just as easy evolutionarily to just stick out random limbs everywhere but those animals end up sucking.