Reminds me of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/news020926-8" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/news020926-8</a>
"The 500-year-old Ryoanji Temple garden in Kyoto contains five outcroppings of rocks and moss on a rectangle of raked gravel. Using symmetry calculations the researchers have discovered that the objects imply an image of a tree in the empty space between them that we detect, without being aware of doing so1."<p>Full article: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/419359a" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/419359a</a><p>Brought to you by the part of my brain which remembers irrelevant nature articles some 20 years later.
Reading the comments here, I can’t help but think that the insights of and math behind many of these examples are on the order of those websites that claim everything has a Fibonacci spiral in it, when it really doesn’t
Related: Perceptual and physiological responses to Jackson Pollock’s fractals<p>Comparing human responses to visual stimuli of fractal dimension similar to Jackson Pollock's works. Notably, the fractal dimension is remarkably similar to that of forest landscapes.<p><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00060/full" rel="nofollow">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2011.0006...</a>
I often feel like if we could discover the deepest rules governing these kinds of behaviors in nature, it would give us a stronger basis for deriving a "theory of everything" than trying to reconcile classical vs. quantum physics.