Hello,

It could just be that the more detailed look we take at the universe the closer we get to pure philosophy and that not only means we could see duals popping up we could actually see contradictions.

We always have to keep in mind one thing i think is of prime, basic importance:
Pure reason is *assumed* to be able to analyze the roots of all knowledge.
Again:
Pure reason is *assumed* to be able to analyze the roots of all knowledge.
Once more:
Pure reason is *assumed* to be able to analyze the roots of all knowledge.

And, we reach a contradicion even when we try to analyze something as simple as a hole in the ground. We get two different results which depend highly on our choice of application, and each CONTRADICT the other.

What does this say about beauty. It says that we either pick one or the other as somehow better, or we pick all possible results as the better. It doesnt say why we do this, but i think there are psychological theories on that.

What does this say about human nature. We moved from pure reason to (probably) some past random human experiences to explain some of our outcomes.

What does this say about science. We moved from pure reason to human experience, so science is partly about human experience not just pure reason.

 

Hello,

It could just be that the more detailed look we take at the universe the closer we get to pure philosophy and that not only means we could see duals popping up we could actually see contradictions.

We always have to keep in mind one thing i think is of prime, basic importance:
Pure reason is *assumed* to be able to analyze the roots of all knowledge.
Again:
Pure reason is *assumed* to be able to analyze the roots of all knowledge.
Once more:
Pure reason is *assumed* to be able to analyze the roots of all knowledge.

And, we reach a contradicion even when we try to analyze something as simple as a hole in the ground. We get two different results which depend highly on our choice of application, and each CONTRADICT the other.

What does this say about beauty. It says that we either pick one or the other as somehow better, or we pick all possible results as the better. It doesnt say why we do this, but i think there are psychological theories on that.

What does this say about human nature. We moved from pure reason to (probably) some past random human experiences to explain some of our outcomes.

What does this say about science. We moved from pure reason to human experience, so science is partly about human experience not just pure reason.

You are spot on. This is exactly the reason why string theory is suspect by those who believe that pure philosophy is unscientific.

 

You are spot on. This is exactly the reason why string theory is suspect by those who believe that pure philosophy is unscientific.

I'm not sure I agree with that 100%. Philosophy can reach areas that science can't, simply because not everything can be subject to empirical testing. There really is such thing as a "thought experiment". Anyway, I see string theory as suspect not because of the way I lean philosophically, but rather because it claims everything and nothing at the same time. It offers a gazillion different solutions to the problem of existence itself, arguing that one of them must be right. It's rather like a brute-force approach to a mathematical description of reality, IMHO.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that 100%. Philosophy can reach areas that science can't, simply because not everything can be subject to empirical testing. There really is such thing as a "thought experiment". Anyway, I see string theory as suspect not because of the way I lean philosophically, but rather because it claims everything and nothing at the same time. It offers a gazillion different solutions to the problem of existence itself, arguing that one of them must be right. It's rather like a brute-force approach to a mathematical description of reality, IMHO.

I'm not saying that Philosophy doesn't have its place in the domain of knowledge but scientific experimental evidence trumps all thought experiments. Without realistic testable predictions the "thought experiment" is equivalent to faith.

 

scientific experimental evidence trumps all thought experiments.

agreed

 

I'm not saying that Philosophy doesn't have its place in the domain of knowledge but scientific experimental evidence trumps all thought experiments. Without realistic testable predictions the "thought experiment" is equivalent to faith.

Hi,

But only if it is available at the time of evaluation.

 

Scientists tend to get twitchy when the 'P'-word is used, but whether it is acknowledged or not, every scientist implicitly subscribes to some philosophical viewpoint. At its core, science is applied epistemology; the vaunted scientific method wouldn't exist otherwise. Knowledge of the external world is, after all, the whole point of science.

Then there are the various fields of science. Biology and cosmology are each tightly woven with teleological threads, whether by evolution or thermodynamics. And fundamental physics has peered so deeply that -- much to its dismay -- major ontological issues have seeped in. In a sense, this is science coming full circle: without any irony, physicists used to be called natural philosophers. We are, and always will be, naked apes trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Which is why philosophy is the mother of all forms of disciplined thought. Science, art, politics, religion, ethics all have a bedrock of philosophy.

Even mathematics, the most pure form of thought, can't escape. Do numbers exist? What is the nature of mathematical truth? Can a theorem be true if it is undecidable? Wherever we look closely enough, we will end up with a philosophical question.

 

...
Then there are the various fields of science. Biology and cosmology are each tightly woven with teleological threads, whether by evolution or thermodynamics. And fundamental physics has peered so deeply that -- much to its dismay -- major ontological issues have seeped in. In a sense, this is science coming full circle: without any irony, physicists used to be called natural philosophers. We are, and always will be, naked apes trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Which is why philosophy is the mother of all forms of disciplined thought. Science, art, politics, religion, ethics all have a bedrock of philosophy.

Yes, we need philosophical thinking because pure science limits our reasoning. It might be the mother (Mechanical philosophy to physics) but the cord has been cut on the end result of what's scientific and this IMO should remain so. Unmeasurables already have a place to sleep at night (QM). The sine qua non of a theory’s being scientific is that, ultimately, it’s got to be put to an empirical test to discover the nature of physical reality.

 

it’s got to be put to an empirical test to discover the nature of physical reality.

And yet our very acceptance of physical reality is based on "faith" ... that is, there's a basic foundation that our minds need to accept dogmatically for us to function properly in our daily lives. As simple as "I think, therefore I exist". Otherwise the world would drive us insane ... inflicting delusions on us such as nihilism or solipsism ... or making us believe that we're living inside a simulation, like Elon Musk once suggested.

 

And yet our very acceptance of physical reality is based on "faith" ... that is, there's a basic foundation that our minds need to accept dogmatically for us to function properly in our daily lives. As simple as "I think, therefore I exist". Otherwise the world would drive us insane ... inflicting delusions on us such as nihilism or solipsism ... or or making us believe that we're living inside a simulation, like Elon Musk once suggested.

My acceptance of physical reality is based on the reality of what will happen if I jump off a tall building. "Faith" is what happens after I go splat.

 

My acceptance of physical reality is based on the reality of what will happen if I jump off a tall building. "Faith" is what happens after I go splat.

yeah ... I was gonna say, pain makes a compelling advocate for reality ...

 

Yes, we need philosophical thinking because pure science limits our reasoning. It might be the mother (Mechanical philosophy to physics) but the cord has been cut on the end result of what's scientific and this IMO should remain so. Unmeasurables already have a place to sleep at night (QM). The sine qua non of a theory’s being scientific is that, ultimately, it’s got to be put to an empirical test to discover the nature of physical reality.

You have it backwards; without philosophical thinking, there is no scientific thinking. The very question of what it takes to discover the nature of physical reality -- and the empirical answer that followed -- is pure philosophy. Implicit in every single scientific experiment and research paper is a host of philosophical assumptions. It's the water we swim in.

Note that I'm not in any way suggesting that scientists focus on philosophy. For the most part they suck at it.

 

without philosophical thinking, there is no scientific thinking.

indeed ... philosophy is the precursor to science

 

You have it backwards; without philosophical thinking, there is no scientific thinking. The very question of what it takes to discover the nature of physical reality -- and the empirical answer that followed -- is pure philosophy. Implicit in every single scientific experiment and research paper is a host of philosophical assumptions. It's the water we swim in.

Note that I'm not in any way suggesting that scientists focus on philosophy. For the most part they suck at it.

You misread what I said. I don't disagree with that.

 

Sigmund Freud's vision about human's instincts could be a good refrence to define beauty in AI.
in fact, human's emotion works like a State Machine between various instincts.
so if you find a good definition for these states (instincts), you would define "Beauty" as an state in this machine as much near as it is in human's conscience.
BTW, there are always some predefined concepts in human's conscience that are robust enough not to be considered as manipulatable parameters.

 

Hi,

The thing that differentiates scientists is purely an artistic ability to discern what is a good idea, what is a beautiful idea, what is worth spending time on, and most importantly, what is a problem that is sufficiently interesting, yet sufficiently difficult, that it hasn't yet been solved, but the time for solving it has come now.
--Dimopoulos, Stanford University

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/

Both challenges have some justification. “Why should the laws of nature care what I find beautiful?” Hossenfelder righteously asks, and the answer is: They shouldn’t.

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/

I think the article sets up a straw-man argument about her main objections to “beauty” in theoretical physics.

All reality is filtered by our brains. We all have a cognitive bias in what we 'see' and expect in nature. Having solid experimental data is what's needed to find reality. I'll keep the crappy old scientific method instead of the “string theory landscape” for a bit longer.

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

 

I think the article sets up a straw-man argument about her main objections to “beauty” in theoretical physics.

All reality is filtered by our brains. We all have a cognitive bias in what we 'see' and expect in nature. Having solid experimental data is what's needed to find reality. I'll keep the crappy old scientific method instead of the “string theory landscape” for a bit longer.

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

Hi,

Is the green peg on top of the 'board' or is it going through the 'board' ?
In the graphic it does not matter but for an actual construction in real life reality it does when it comes to making it, but not for when we just have to cast a shadow.

 

Hi,

Is the green peg on top of the 'board' or is it going through the 'board' ?
In the graphic it does not matter but for an actual construction in real life reality it does when it comes to making it, but not for when we just have to cast a shadow.

Yes