>Living organisms likely exploit this property of self-similarity for easy scaling.

Do note your usage of the term "likely". You don't know exactly why, just like no one else really does.

You're making a likely supposition, not a statement of fact. We have theories as to why and how the Fibonacci sequences are found in nature as you've posited, but that doesn't mean it's well-understood nor some sort of old and tired closed case.

>pseudo-mystical notions

I don't see Chomsky espousing pseudo-mystical notions. He simply said it's found all over nature and it's not well understood why. By your insulting tone, I would surmise you have a grudge with Chomsky that goes well beyond anything to do with Fibonacci numbers.

Are you a neo-libertarian, perhaps?

>We understand why the Golden Ratio shows up all over the place, especially in biology: it doesn't.

I don't think Chomsky meant for you to take "all over the place" so --literally--. It's a commonly understood expression that's not meant to be taken so literally unless one perhaps has a pedantic axe to grind.

The respected mathematician Arthur T. Benjamin would disagree with you that it's not an interesting fact when it shows up in nature:

http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_the_magic_of_fibona...

Chomsky didn't say anything terribly problematic about Fibonacci numbers. You're frankly going to have to find a better example to discount his conclusions on other topics which you have no understanding (as you said).

> it's the logarithmic spiral that's common, and it's a due to logarithmic spirals being a necessary characteristic of certain structures that exhibit self-similarity.

Yes, but why? Do you have the answer to that?

You've basically posited the same thing that Chomsky said when he said:

"There is something about the physical world that forces certain kinds of structures to emerge under particular conditions."

>What you'll actually find is not a series of systems all approximating the same Golden Spiral

Correct, but one will also find otherwise. Also, often it's an approximation that's often not meant to be taken --literally--. It's just noting similarities in patterns that anyone (including laypersons) can observe and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

If Chomsky was writing a piece on Fibonacci numbers, I might agree with you that he didn't go into enough depth on the topic. But, it appears you missed his greater point while focusing on trite details and being too literal.