They'd probably be more... computational:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1579550088/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=...

>My grudge, if I have any at all, is not with Chomsky or his politics, but rather with the Myth of Magical Numbers, which has so entrenched itself that even mathematicians have fallen prey to it in one form or another for centuries, if not millennia.

I see your point, but I'm not sure Chomsky was espousing anything magical (as in pseudo-science) by saying the Fibonacci sequence is found in nature and isn't well understood why. Present company excepted, perhaps.

I also try to keep in mind that the term "magical" is often rather amorphously applied.

Some call pseudo-science "magical" due to ignorance.

Some call some science "magical" due to ignorance.

However, some call certain science "magical" not due to ignorance, but as a respectful nod towards the vast complexities involved that we still don't know (and perhaps never will) that surround the complex "nature"[0] of science.

If you haven't already read it, I think this is a pretty interesting take on it (in a sense):

http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Science-Stephen-Wolfram/dp/15...

Series of followups 10 years later:

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-wha...

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek (Love And Rockets - "No New Tale To Tell")

I can't help but think that maybe Jobs just didn't have a positive review of the book. I've never read it but the most helpful reviews on Amazon are not favorable.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Science-Stephen-Wolfram/dp/15...