Quantum Theory - Artistic Sense Versus Mathematical Reasoning
73The human body requires a sensory feel of the world where the human mind can make sense of it all.
Math Versus Material Existence
In quantum theory, objective reality is the wave function, according to Casey Blood, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rutgers University , but this assertion seems to contradict the very meaning of “objective”. Why? - The wave function is a mathematical blueprint that guides a mental procedure for manipulating perceptions of objective quantities. The mathematical symbolism, thus, is NOT the reality. Rather, the mathematical symbolism DESCRIBES the reality. Perhaps we can say that the wave function tells us what reality is NOT, but we have yet to figure out what exactly the wave function tells us reality actually IS.
What Reality Is NOT
As an artist, I demand respect for a physical feel of the world. If someone tells me that a physical feel is an untrustworthy illusion, then I invite the person to hold firm to this position after a catastrophic injury, such as a stroke. As the proponent of reality illusions staggers and stumbles due to brain damage, I further welcome continued adherence to the idea that a normal walking gate is an untrustworthy illusion.
Granted, reality might not be what many people once thought it was, but reality most certainly is a valid idea in the everyday world. A humane science, therefore, should be able to accommodate a sensory feel of reality that harmonizes with mathematical descriptions of it.
The wave function seems to be telling us that reality is NOT a collection of objects ultimately divided from one another, that matter is NOT a collection of particles ultimately separated by voids, and that our emphasis on the idea of solids is NOT correct The challenge, then, seems to be to find an analogy that makes quantum theory more appealing to the senses, even though quantum theory deals in the realm of submicroscopic, atomic measurements, where human senses fail to operate.
Reality, as a valid, human-level idea cannot die at the sub-microscopic scale. To kill this idea is to kill the body as it relates to and supports the mind.
What Reality IS
Some people might say that quantum theory tells us that there are many different realities existing all at once, as absolutely divided "parallell universes". I find this interesting -- how the theory could demand that we NOT divide matter absolutely, yet demand that we divide universes absolutely. How could we ever proove any such state of affairs, if we could NEVER visit other universes? This solution, thus, seems as much of a fantasy as the absolute particle idea that we originally abandoned to reach it.
I suggest that human thought has reached a stage where it must reverse its most fundamental premise about the divisibilty of anything. The primise of divisibility is the flaw. As mentioned above, quantum theory, at first, indicates that apparent objects of the universe are NOT divided, then it says that universes containing indivisible objects ARE divided. One fantasy seems to replace another.
The Error Of Division
The only way I see out of this trap is to admit that our traditional idea of space as nothingness is wrong, and that apparent voids between seemingly separate entities are in fact, someTHINGs too. What are these THINGs that spaces really are? I suggest that space, in general, is the fundamental "stuff" of all existence, only a very thin form of this fundamental stuff.
Even more, I suggest that we always require more than ONLY an idea of "stuff". We also require an idea of MOTION. No THING can exist without motion, and no MOTION can exist without someTHING to move. "Stuffmotion" is how the universe and reality exist. "Exist" means "stuff and motion simultaneously" or "stuff in motion" infinitley and eternally. This is how our minds can make sense of the world. As long as we have physical bodies, we require this sort of physical, tangible feel of our own bodily beings.
From Quantum Jumps To Conceptual Leaps
Quantum theory, on one hand, tells us that things are NOT ultimately divided. On the other hand, it tells us that reality is NOT continuous and that changes take place ONLY in set packets (quanta), where these packets seem completely divided in their progressions. One interpretation of quantum theory even tells us that an infinite number of universes exist ultimately divided.
So, how are we to accept indivisibility and such blatant divisibility at once? What allows our minds to make bodily sense of this? I have answered these questions on other occasions, in other contexts, but here I answer them again with one word.
"Fluid"
The leap that human thought has to make is to consider the idea of indivisible continuity as sacred as the idea of ultimate divisibility. In other words, consider reality as one contiuous mass of stuff in motion, with no possibility of being divided ever. This is the axiom that we must apply with no question. The "stuffmotion" of the universe simply obeys this first, ultimate law. "Stuffmotion" folds into infinite, intricate, complex patterns that exist for various periods relative to one another, which gives the impression of one object's being contained by another. In this ultimate-fluid world-view, the idea of "compression" only arises in specific contexts where we need it to describe our thought experiences. Ultimately, compression does NOT exist, because there are no separate parts, ultimately, to compress any closer together.
Fluid reality can mix its forms, make sheets, walls and cellular membranes that combine, agglomerate, and create or destroy relationships. At any stage of analysis, however, we can always take comfort in the fact that we are talking about the same one thing-in-motion. We can be more assured that we are talking about an OBJECTIVE REALITY , which visual artists take for granted. We might even come to view the mathematical creations of our most rigid scientific theories as graphic art forms.
CommentsLoading...
Rudura,
That's sort of the point. The complexity of the math does not appeal to a common-sense explanation that human beings seem to require. It would be great if the math could harmonized better with human nature, which it does NOT presently.
Robert
Are you arguing that there is something actually wrong with the math of quantum physics, or are you saying there's something wrong just because you can't comprehend it? No one gives a damn whether a piece of science has "artistic feel" or not. Leave the artists to go off on their own life-path, with plenty of time for partying and drinking. Science students chose a different path, to actually understand things and not demand that everything be simple or elegant.
"No one gives a damn whether a piece of science has "artistic feel" or not. " -- Pierre Savoie
THAT's what I am arguing is wrong. And I do believe that both Albert Einstein and David Bohm would have adamantly disagreed with you on this point.
"Science students chose a different path, to actually understand things and not demand that everything be simple or elegant." -- PS
I was a science student, and I DID choose a different path that was more artistic. Quantum theorists, most assuredly, do NOT "understand things". They understand how to work their mathematical machinery to make measurements and predictions to control their lives, but they, generally, will admit that even they do NOT fully understand WHY it works so well.
"Leave the artists to go off on their own life-path, with plenty of time for partying and drinking." --PS
This entertains us with a very incorrect generalization that attempts to insult artists. You simply express a grossly erroneous attitude that smacks of arrogance.
Elegance also does NOT imply simplicity. Elegance is a form of beauty that can exist in BOTH science AND art. The best science is the most elegant science, actually a form of art itself. The seapartion between art and science is false.
Robert
On his profile page, Pierre Savoie writes the following comment:
"And if you try to stick New Age drivel into the Education and Science hubs, I will be pleased to spend my weekends Flagging your butts."
I can only assume that Pierre would also use phrases like, "artistic drivel".
My message to him is: Two can play at this game. And if YOU try to use closed-minded, orthodox drivel to debase enlightened, creative hubs, then I will be glad to email hubpages support and report your butt as a hubpage saboteur. Your arrogance is unbelievable.
No, Kernodle, don't try to stick "artistic sensibilities" in a serious discussion. Learn to like the math for what it really is. Art doesn't belong in a science hub.
Pierre,
I respectfully and adamantly disagree. Art most certainly belongs in a science hub.
I fear the grave error you make is to divide art completely from science. Art can, in fact, provide great visual clarity for scientific, mathematical methods.
Mathematics is itself a sort of human sensibility. Math does NOT stand apart from the whole network of human sensibilities-- math is a more refined expression of human sensibilities. It emmits from the human brain/mind, which is in a continuous process of expressing what nerve impulses mean.
Taken to its polar extreme, however, math can become our mistaken notion of the perfect sensibility, thus amputating our original bodily sensibilities from the more complex scheme of making human meaning. Math, thus, can be divided so completely from what it describes that we begin to confuse the map for the territory. Some descriptions of quantum theory do exactly this, because the thinkers take a "to hell with reality" attitude about what they are actually sensing and doing.
Your might be interested to know that I was once a math major, and I witnessed (first hand) how students tended to complete their calculations efficiently and mechanically, with no idea of the basic axioms from which their answers arose, let alone any idea of how to relate these axioms meaningfully to other areas of culture. I actually annoyed my geometry teacher, because my proofs were so long with minute axiomatic detail.
Haha, I'll just casually ignore some non-specialist who can't see how people can think in pure math all day. Us actual scientists and mathematicians can handle it, thank you very much. We don't feel "amputated". Math works best when you DON'T think of what the numbers and variables represent. Wait until you get a cogent answer, "go through the tunnel" first before you decide what real-world, cogent meaning the answer has.
Obviously, you did NOT ignore me. Instead, you used me as a tool to boost your own self importance. If I go to hubs that YOU write, I could just as easily accuse you of being a non-specialist in the specialized topics that you might write about.
The "specialist" argument, thus, fails, because intelligent people can cross over specialities and interrelate them. I offer a different point of view here.
I notice that you write about (or I should say AGAINST) religion on your profile page. Yet, what is religion except a strong stance about one's own personal beliefs? You, then, seem very religious about debasing anything that deals with feeling, sensuality, or aesthetics.
Your philosophy seems to be "shut up and calculate."
Don't play the redefinition game. Religion is a belief in occult, supernatural spirits and I know there are none.
And science is not really interested in your tubes of oil-paint, trying to daub something over mathematics because you claim mathematics has no "heart". Leave us alone, oil-painter, we have important math to think about.
"Our work is motivated not just by the utility and importance of fluid flows, but also by their inherent beauty." -- http://www.colorado.edu/MCEN/flowvis/
Religion holds to beliefs in spirits-- non-material entities that have no physical existence. Quantum theory holds to beliefs in state vectors-- non-material entities that have no physical existence.
Religion upholds the belief that no power of understanding is greater than the chief spirit, God. Quantum theory upholds that no power of understanding is greater than the chief function, state vector.
What kind of bizarre New Age catechism are you quoting from? From what book? Come on, be honest now! Quantum theory is difficult to understand and it can be counter-intuitive, but what scientist says that "no power of understanding is greater than the chief function, state vector?" What kind of gobbledygook is that? State vectors result from solving wave equations, they are not the function itself. Who has indoctrinated you with this nonsense?
For that matter, what theologist has said "no power of understanding is greater than God"?
Religion is much more than just "a strong stance": it is a strong stance on unproven nonsense. I can prove what I say. You sound like the guy who flunked out of a science curriculum and wants to claim an "artistic" view is superior to the view of those who actually put in the skull-sweat to study the mathematics and take scientific principles for what they really are, with no short-cuts or digressions into pretty tubes of paint.
Dont worry robert, he was proven wrong by me about quantum physics and countless others so he is now attacking you trying to get you to accept that he is right and that in his made-up world of laws of the univerese that we should all re-write our text books to fit his rambelings. dont worry ive allready spoken to Diane and his account is going to be pulled within a week.
You know its really funny watching you go around hubpages making an ass of yourself arguing quantum physics with everyone.
Do you still believe perpetual motion is not possible?
I'm glad that you "went to school" so long ago that your teachings are as aged as the men who wrote them.
that your little "well educated" mind cant fathom why your in your late 30's early 40's and still a loser. its because your arguing quantum physics with 20 year olds learning the real thing and still probably chasing tail online. when the rest of us are actually getting some.
And do not be confused sir, i know you have nothing more important in your life to do right now than read this message. you are pathetic and a BURDEN on humanity.
and the only difference between you and me is i'm NOT a balding, sterile, community college educated, know-nothing know-it-all, with an attitude like my i shit gold and it matters.
well quit walking around offering everyone your shit, because it ain't gold, and YES we can smell it.
[“What kind of bizarre New Age catechism are you quoting from? From what book? Come on, be honest now!”]
ANSWER: I am quoting from the online description of a class offered in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder 80309. You may write them to confirm my claim, or simply click on the link that I plainly presented to you.
[“Quantum theory is difficult to understand and it can be counter-intuitive, but what scientist says that "no power of understanding is greater than the chief function, state vector?"]
ANSWER: Actually, what most scientists say (who hold to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics) is that no greater understanding of reality can be achieved than the understanding offered by the wave function, or, more properly, “state vector”. In other words, these scientists elevate the wave function above all else as the best description of reality. And this so-called “understanding” of reality is actually NO UNDERSTADNIG at all, because the premise of the wave function is to deny that any “objective reality” even exists at the subatomic scale.
[“What kind of gobbledygook is that?”]
ANSWER: No gogbbledygook here. “Wave equations” describe the wave FUNCTION, the chief function that scientists use to determine a physical system’s state.
[“State vectors result from solving wave equations, they are not the function itself. Who has indoctrinated you with this nonsense?”]
ANSWER: Wave equations DESCRIBE (thus constitute the meaning of) the wave FUNCTION. The wave FUNCTION, thus, determines the state vector, so you are wrong about my misuse of words. A function IS an equation describing the arrangement and relationships of its various terms. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function,
“A wave function or wavefunction is a probability amplitude in quantum mechanics describing the quantum state of a particle or system of particles. Typically, it is a function of space or momentum or spin and possibly of time that returns the probability amplitude of a position or momentum for a subatomic particle. Mathematically, it is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into the complex numbers. The laws of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time.”
[“For that matter, what theologist has said "no power of understanding is greater than God"?]
ANSWER: I was NOT quoting a specific theologist. I was generalizing a specific attitude that MANY theologists seem to hold, namely, that God is the highest power with the highest understanding of the universe. And I was comparing this reverence for a spiritual, non-material God to the reverence for a mathematical, non-material equation/function/state vector.
[“Religion is much more than just "a strong stance": it is a strong stance on unproven nonsense.”]
ANSWER: Certainly, you realize that no one can DISPROVE the existence of God--NOT EVEN YOU can do this. What I believe CAN be proven is that quite a number of people live better lives by believing in a higher creative power, whatever one might call it, and this is not nonsense, this is creative imagination. Now let’s look at some REAL nonsense –- we cannot know for sure what exists, because our measurements of what might exist influence the system we are trying to determine the existence of, so our best option is to NOT question what might exist without our being there and attribute this uncertainty to nature, instead of to our human ability to perceive the nature that we cannot claim really exists, and then use our clever calculating machinery’s incredible precision (to twelve decimal places) to create really fun stuff like advanced computers, where two dudes can argue about art vs. science.
[“I can prove what I say.”]
ANSWER: According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, you do not even exist at the subatomic scale, so there can be no scientific claim of your existence to validate what you say you can prove. Now, if we look at the many-worlds interpretation, there is one of many parallel universes where you and I are having a couple beers, laughing it up at some strip bar.
[“You sound like the guy who flunked out of a science curriculum and wants to claim an "artistic" view is superior to the view of those who actually put in the skull-sweat to study the mathematics and take scientific principles for what they really are, with no short-cuts or digressions into pretty tubes of paint.”]
ANSWER: Well, I certainly do NOT intend to give such an impression. Actually, I did quite well in my math and science courses. I just chose a different path from the one on which I started. You imply that art does NOT involve sweat. Wrong again! I do not belittle what mathematics and scientific principles really are – I just suggest that these disciplines might be much better if they actively nurture artistic sensibilities as well as mechanical procedures. Here’s a cool quote - “BOTH THE ARTS AND THE SCIENCES, SAYS DR. JEMISON, ARE NOT MERELY CONNECTED BUT MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SAME THING.” -- http://theuniversityblog.co.uk/2008/03/14/science-
Hi FaceTheFacts,
Don't be too hard on Pierre. Let him speak his mind--this produces more dramma, which produces more hits on this hub.
Dissenters, come one come all. Welcome to the wonderful world of controversy.
So, in other words, you didn't finish your science degree, a "Christmas grad" for all I know, yet you feel entitled to claim there is a "better way" than math to understand quantum theory? Know what an eigenvector is? Is THAT what you meant by "state vector"? It is to laugh. Also you casually toss out Burden of Disproof fallacies by claiming "Prove God does NOT exist!" Why don't you prove that Porky Pig was NOT the creator of the whole Universe on April 12, 1937 together with our false memories of a far older time? You can't.
[“So, in other words, you didn't finish your science degree, a "Christmas grad" for all I know, yet you feel entitled to claim there is a "better way" than math to understand quantum theory?”]
ANSWER: I reject your underlying premise here, which is that a person needs a degree in a subject in order to engage in a constructive conversation about it. This requirement would leave YOU sorely lacking in any credibility whatsoever to carry on a conversation about me, pretending to be a political/psychological analyst – do YOU have degrees in politics and psychology? Do you have any real basis of knowledge about me to make your ad hominem attacks? NO! You are a self-made critic with a negative attitude, and you get off on confrontations. Also, I am not suggesting “A BETTER WAY THAN MATH TO UNDERSTAND QUANTUM THEORY”, as you say. Rather, I am suggesting a better interpretation for the math that already works so beautifully in our practical world.
[“Know what an eigenvector is? Is THAT what you meant by "state vector"? It is to laugh.”]
ANSWER: You mean eigenfunction? – I am not versed in this level of math. I have a general idea of what an eigenfunction is, and what a state vector is, and I know that eigenfunctions work with certain advanced operators in the conceptual machinery of quantum theory. “Those people who ARE expertly versed in this highly advanced area, unfortunately, ARE NOT versed in a sense of underlying meaning about what they are working with. THIS is a bigger laugh! Now I ask you, Do you need to know how to build a car, in order to recommend how someone might drive a car better? Again, NO! Also, you keep harping on my use of the term, “STATE VECTOR” – in the reading I am doing lately, this is the preferred, correct term that the EXPERTS suggest, instead of “wave function”. I am just using the term that the experts prefer.
[“Also you casually toss out Burden of Disproof fallacies by claiming "Prove God does NOT exist!" Why don't you prove that Porky Pig was NOT the creator of the whole Universe on April 12, 1937 together with our false memories of a far older time? You can't.A”]
ANSWER: I think you mean “BURDEN OF PROOF”, and this is exactly my point. My original observation, thus, stands -- you make a fundamental error by implying that you can disprove the existence of God. And you compound this error by presenting an argument for me to disprove a claim that, clearly, common experience shows is quite a bit more ludicrous than the belief in a conscious, Supreme Being. I already know that I cannot do this, and yet you ask me too, which clearly ignores the very point I was making. This is how your falsely sanctified logic can easily break down and open itself up to criticism by non-specialists such as me. Finally, fresh eyes (even those of a non-specialist) focused in a different domain can sometimes inspire a whole new direction for experts to take things. Here are a few nuggets of wisdom for you:
• "Our mathematical procedures seem to obscure our intuitive and imaginative understanding." -- Bohm, Foundations of Physics 5, 93 (1975).
• I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all if we just apply working mathematical rules; that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with." -- Dirac, Physicist's Conception of Nature, pg 11.
So, IN OTHER WORDS, you didn't finish a degree? You keep trying to deflect that point, but I'd much rather speak to people who completed a DEGREE, who actually completed SOMETHING in the field they want to study, to show some tenacity. An Undegreed is at best a humanoid who speaks a kind of jabber, who has learned to wear socks and not make messes in the house.
I fail to see how you can offer a better interpretation of math if you don't know any math. Nor can I believe you can furnish "underlying meaning" if you don't recognize math terms like an eigenvector.
I also think you tossed out a Burden of Disproof Fallacy, and this gaffe can not be so easily glossed over either. It is a glaring example of lack of logical thinking. No statement of the form "Prove that x DOESN'T exist." is worth entertaining.
Funny thing about Pierre is he has a degree in chemistry yet he strays away from chemistry topics....
wonder why....
[“So, IN OTHER WORDS, you didn't finish a degree? You keep trying to deflect that point, but I'd much rather speak to people who completed a DEGREE, who actually completed SOMETHING in the field they want to study, to show some tenacity.”]
ANSWER: I am NOT deflecting any point. I simply think your point about a formal degree is irrelevant to the nature of my creative inquiry. A person can learn WITHOUT following an institutional degree program. I readily admit that I did NOT obtain a formal degree in the subject in which you seem to think I require one. I did something much more educational – self-study and self-development. I, most assuredly, have completed many things that require grueling tenacity, MY ARTWORKS included. YOU have failed to admit that YOU also do NOT have degrees in subjects about which YOU write, yet you think my not having a degree in this particular subject is somehow more UNacceptable than YOUR NOT HAVING DEGREES IN ALL THE SUBJECTS ABOUT WHICH YOU CHOOSE TO WRITE. This form of behavior is nothing less than pure snobbery on your part. I see absolutely NO GLORY in the degree you DO have, in the field in which you readily admit that you are NOT employed.
[“An Undegreed is at best a humanoid who speaks a kind of jabber, who has learned to wear socks and not make messes in the house.”]
ANSWER: Well, YOU certainly fit this description as well or even better than me. YOU make messes of creative discussions, and then you imply praise for yourself. You are an unenlightened techno-snob, parading as a champion of science. I don’t buy it.
[“I fail to see how you can offer a better interpretation of math if you don't know any math.”]
ANSWER: First, I DO know some math – I did quite well in geometry and in the calculus courses I took. But I made a choice NOT to go on, because of reasons I suggested earlier. Second, “Interpretation” has less to do with mathematical machinery than it does with philosophical extension into a wider culture. And I am not claiming to definitively offer THE better interpretation. What I am claiming is that I can offer creative insights that might inspire deeper understanding about the mathematical machinery.
[“Nor can I believe you can furnish "underlying meaning" if you don't recognize math terms like an eigenvector.”]
ANSWER: Let me explain it to you, then.
You ask me whether I know what a HIGHER-level mathematical concept is – “eigenvector”, as you call it. Now, I here ask YOU whether YOU know what an ELEMENTARY-level mathematical concept is – the “number line”. I suspect that you think you know what a number line is, but what you most probably know, in fact, is how to manipulate the concept of a number line in higher-level, mathematical contexts, WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
A number line is an abstraction – an idea of “extension” – extension divided by conceptual place holders that have zero size (“points”). SomeTHING of ZERO ACTUAL SIZE can hold a physical place and serve to divide one part of the line from another part of the line. Furthermore, the segment of imaginary extension (line segment) that is so divided has ZERO thickness. Now, in between any two ZERO-size points, we can conceive an infinity of ZERO-size additional points, all delineating an infinity of ZERO-thickness additional line segments. We, then, try to map this idea (that allows ZERO-size points and ZERO-thickness lines) onto a sensual reality that is substantial and objective. The underlying assumption here is that our sensual, substantial, objective reality has a one to one correspondence with entities of zero size and zero thickness, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, that our sensual, substantial reality is infinitely divisible.
In essence, mathematical NOthings are used to map reality’s SOMEthngs. I suggest that this is the most underlying source of conflict between the two theoretical bastions of modern science, relativity and quantum mechanics, causing unacceptable infinities in certain attempts at finding solutions. I, further, can claim this insight without having to know exactly how to operate the higher mathematical machinery of either theory. I can suggest that the internal consistency of each theory rests on an accumulation of errors, starting with the very thing I just wrote about.
Do NOT demand of me competence in ADVANCED concepts, without YOUR having competence in ELEMENTARY concepts.
As you must surely understand, knowledge can be fragmented and STILL be FUNCTIONAL – I can write a webpage in HTML code without having to know the raw machine language of binary code upon which HTML code rests. I can drive a car without having to know how to build a car from scratch. My approach in the subject about which you are so critical is, admittedly, fragmented in this way – I never claimed otherwise. The whole domain of human knowledge is fragmented in this way, and this is why a variety of different people can participate in the evolution of knowledge.
[“I also think you tossed out a Burden of Disproof Fallacy, and this gaffe cannot be so easily glossed over either.”]
ANSWER: If did NO SUCH THING. You are delusional.
[“It is a glaring example of lack of logical thinking.”]
ANSWER: What is glaring is YOUR lack of higher-logical, creative thinking.
[“No statement of the form "Prove that x DOESN'T exist." is worth entertaining.”]
ANSWER: Then why do YOU keep harping on it? YOUR lack of insight is what is TRULY entertaining.
TO FACETHEFACTS:
You wrote, "Funny thing about Pierre is he has a degree in chemistry yet he strays away from chemistry topics....
wonder why...."
ANSWER: Even funnier, Pierre can write hubs about a musical instrument and NOT have a degree in music. And his hubs on his chosen musical instrument are interesting, yet he did NOT require a music degree to make them so.
Let me ask you this: what if philosophizing and art DON'T matter, to this or any subject?
What if philosophizing and art DON'T matter, to this or any subject?
It is only human to think that what you chose to quit is really not very important (the "sour grapes" story), and what you chose to get into is the vital lynch-pin of our whole society. But I say trading science for art is a very, very bad trade indeed. It makes you very bitter, manning the french fry-truck outside of the boxing arena, working the deep-fryer machine. Your wall says you have a degree in ART but you're not getting the validation you need for it. Meanwhile those who actually stuck to math and science get responsible jobs, making things, figuring out how to build things others can't build, and rewarded handsomely on the only real scale of worth that matters, the dollar scale. So, after a while, it becomes tempting to claim you have a line on the real, UNDERLYING meaning of things. But it's all so much bullcrap unless you actually invest in the real topic at hand. Don't think taking one Mickey Mouse course in the Philosophy of Science gives you a handle on real science. Likewise, don't think we're going to get some better "handle" on quantum physics by daubing tubes of oil-paint around. No, the truth is really ONLY in the math equations, and that's going to be a Pons Asinorum, the Bridge of Asses which cuts some people forever off from understanding what's going on. You either hack the math or you can't. There is no "artistic tunneling" route. So dream those dreams, sure, but until you're willing to make a commitment ot the real path, I'm afraid it's the smell of french fries and footlong dogs for you...
I see case after case of where religion has to bend to scientific findings. I don't see any case where science had to bend to religious findings, because religion HAS no valid findings. Likewise, I don't see any case where religion has to bend to ART, or if an ARTIST has a new perspective that makes scientists' heads shake in wonder. But dissatisfied, bitter artists want to claim THEY will bring forth the new paradigm, with no effort. Come on, give me ONE case where art modifies science.
["Come on, give me ONE case where art modifies science."]
I fear where science would be without art. Visualization is very important for understanding models that relate to the human perceptual system, which is quite a bit more complex than linear strings of symbols, arranged left-to-right.
Math, for instance, is somewhat like trying to reduce a zebra to a line of symbols, whereas, the actual zebra has many more degrees of freedom, many more degrees of extension and many more degrees of dimensionality than a linear set of symbols. The linear symbols alone could never communicate a meaningful picture of the biological entity that roams and eats grass. "A picture is worth a thousand words", so the saying goes. I believe the count is waaaaaay too low.
Religion and art are very similar too, in my view, because a creative faith is involved with both, as well as a tenacity to hold to the faith, because it seems to work in some cases. Of course, religions OR sciences, viewed as ultimately sanctified and separated fields (divided from all else) take on a destructive quality that negates their initial creative motivations. This is how religions start wars.
There is an ethic of moderation that must be applied between all disciplines to make them harmonize in beatiful accords.
Finally, visual modeling is extremely important in engineering, architecture, and any number of fields that deal with tangible structures that we must build.
As a child, I used to read astronomy books, and if any book on astronomy even had one word about "God", then I would curse it, close it, and stop reading.
When you look at science, in the long run, over history, you will see that a good deal of faith is involved with a great scientist working on a new theory. Why would a person spend hours and years re-developining Minkowski's geometry into a workable theory (Einstein), unless there was an underlying faith in the math? Today, in physics, math seems to be like God is in many religions. Just because we do NOT see math as a living figure does not mean that we are not worshiping it.
But, really, THAT's okay. I am NOT KNOCKING math, please understand. I am just saying that there can be an accord between math and art, a better accord.
["Come on, give me ONE case where art modifies science."]
[“But dissatisfied, bitter artists want to claim THEY will bring forth the new paradigm, with no effort.”]
ANSWER: Is THAT what you think I am – a “dissatisfied, bitter artist” who exerts “no effort”? You think art requires no effort?! You have a poor conception of art and artists, then.
Drunkards can exist in any field of endeavor, as can dedicated, sober individuals. I assure you that I have spent MUCH EFFORT in my art. Art generally requires a different class of efforts than science, but these efforts are intensely focused and valid.
Some people would even say that science is a more rigid style of art. Some people would argue that both art and science arise from a fundamental, common base.
I am NOT bitter. I did NOT discontinue my focus on math, because I could not hack it. I changed course, because I was more attracted to the scale of creative imagination that a person can employ as an artist.
The fact that Neils Bohr had an affinity for cubism is proof that artistic thinking served a decisive role in translating his revolutionary scientific measurements into a workable metaphor he felt comfortable sharing with others.
A world that all humans share needs good metaphors. Metaphors are how people in different fields learn to cooperate and communicate about a common culture.
I believe that a good metaphor for today involves the concept of a fluid. There are convincing arguments that propose how the quantum world can be likened to a world of fluid dynamics. I will touch on these in my next hubpages article.
Rudra 13 months ago
The formula completely blew me away. Its too complicated for me.