Humans make the model. It is descriptive of the phenomena hopefully, but a model is not the phenomena.
Did nature invent E or pi, or are they constructions of humans trying to understand E or pi?
Your understanding of these "rules" are bass ackwards. The rules we use are adequate until a better more descriptive rule comes into use. Occams razor comes into play here.
Our mathematics and reasoning are only descriptive of the phenomena we observe. E and pi are our ways of understanding what natural phenomena are. Not the other way around.
Nature does not bend to our boundries.
In your examples, do they hold true in all examples...near light speed, near a great gravitational forces, or at extremely small distances? No? Does it make a difference if it is a point source or a plane?
You pose that the universe may obey only one rule.
Say it outloud, and you will get the Nobel Prize and the accolades of so many countries your life will be lauded.
But I won't hold my breath.
Fractals are a human construct. One made to mimic nature.
Your proof by analogy is silly.
Your knowledge about physicists is just as silly.
Have fun in this silly thread.
DK
These numbers are not a constructions of humans. We know that because different people using different techniques always arrive at the same value for these numbers independently. An alien culture on another star in another universe would still find the same value of the ratio of a circle's circumference to the diameter.
The number would always be the same regardless.
Occams razor is something scientists take as a matter of faith and so far it has worked. And it implies that, when we find it, the ultimate rule of the universe will be pure and simple.
Fractals are a human construct. One made to mimic nature.
Backwards. Nature obeys the mathematical rules of fractals.
The laws of physics tend to get more complex under extreme conditions. To me, that fact means that we haven't discovered the real laws. What does it mean to you?