Beauty

Discussion in 'Physics' started by nsaspook, Jul 17, 2018.

  1. MrAl

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 17, 2014
    5,542
    1,176
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  2. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,173
    5,703
    You are spot on. This is exactly the reason why string theory is suspect by those who believe that pure philosophy is unscientific.
     
  3. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    5,660
    6,887
    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.
     
  4. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,173
    5,703
    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.
     
  5. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    5,660
    6,887
    agreed
     
  6. MrAl

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 17, 2014
    5,542
    1,176
    Hi,

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

    Active Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    238
    132
    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.
     
  8. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,173
    5,703
    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.
     
  9. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    5,660
    6,887
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
    bogosort likes this.
  10. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,173
    5,703
    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.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  11. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    5,660
    6,887
    yeah ... I was gonna say, pain makes a compelling advocate for reality ... :D
     
    nsaspook likes this.
  12. bogosort

    Active Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    238
    132
    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. :)
     
  13. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    5,660
    6,887
    indeed ... philosophy is the precursor to science
     
    JohnInTX, killivolt and nsaspook like this.
  14. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,173
    5,703
    You misread what I said. I don't disagree with that.
     
    bogosort and killivolt like this.
  15. visionofast

    New Member

    Oct 17, 2018
    26
    4
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  16. MrAl

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 17, 2014
    5,542
    1,176
    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
     
    Reloadron, cmartinez and nsaspook like this.
Loading...