art and science

[Jack Leibowitz]

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Phil Henshaw-2]

How about listing some of the true open questions, you know, what’s missing from the view of science?    That would be a kind of scientific use of art.    So many of the ‘portals’ between mental universes seem to be through their respective “dark matter”…

 

Phil Henshaw  

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Russ Abbott]

Hi Jack,

I'd like to take advantage of your post to raise an issue that is related--but not directly--to what you are discussing. 

You wrote, "What has made mathematics so important in science, especially physics, is the need for replacing word-fuzziness with precision in prediction."

Although no one can doubt the importance of mathematics to physics and the other sciences, what do you think of this somewhat contrary position. The damage mathematics has done to science is that it has substituted numbers for concepts.

Mathematics is a language of equations and numbers. Of course equations operate within frameworks, which themselves involve concepts--such as dimensionality, symmetry, etc. These are important concepts. But the equations themselves are conceptless. They are simply relationships among numbers that match observation. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the general public is turned off to much of science. The equations don't speak to them. I would say that the equations don't speak to scientists either except to the extent that they manage to interpret them in terms of concepts: this is the strength of this field; this is the mass of this object; etc. But the concepts are not part of the equations. And (famously) quantum mechanics has no concepts for its equations! The equations work, but no one can conceptualize what they mean. So how should one think about quantum mechanics? As a black box with dials one can read? What should the public think about quantum mechanics if that's the best that scientists can do?

I can think of two primary goals for science: to understand nature and to give us some leverage over nature. Equations give us the leverage; concepts give us the understanding.

-- Russ

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Chris Feola]

A fascinating discussion.  E.O. Wilson made much the same point in his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, where he argued that a narrow reliance on mathmatics had destroyed philosophy in particular, while in general an increasing reliance on specialization and mathmatics had handicapped scientists, limiting new hypothesis to variation of current thinking in a particular discipline.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Consilience-Knowledge-Edward-O-Wilson/dp/067976867X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230443706&sr=8-1

 

cjf

 

Christopher J. Feola

President

nextPression, Inc.

www.nextPression.com

 

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] art and science

Hi Jack,

I'd like to take advantage of your post to raise an issue that is related--but not directly--to what you are discussing. 

You wrote, "What has made mathematics so important in science, especially physics, is the need for replacing word-fuzziness with precision in prediction."

Although no one can doubt the importance of mathematics to physics and the other sciences, what do you think of this somewhat contrary position. The damage mathematics has done to science is that it has substituted numbers for concepts.

Mathematics is a language of equations and numbers. Of course equations operate within frameworks, which themselves involve concepts--such as dimensionality, symmetry, etc. These are important concepts. But the equations themselves are conceptless. They are simply relationships among numbers that match observation. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the general public is turned off to much of science. The equations don't speak to them. I would say that the equations don't speak to scientists either except to the extent that they manage to interpret them in terms of concepts: this is the strength of this field; this is the mass of this object; etc. But the concepts are not part of the equations. And (famously) quantum mechanics has no concepts for its equations! The equations work, but no one can conceptualize what they mean. So how should one think about quantum mechanics? As a black box with dials one can read? What should the public think about quantum mechanics if that's the best that scientists can do?

I can think of two primary goals for science: to understand nature and to give us some leverage over nature. Equations give us the leverage; concepts give us the understanding.

-- Russ

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1866 - Release Date: 12/27/2008 8:49 PM

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Jack Leibowitz]

Russ Abbott's comments are interesting. They remind me of a science fiction movie I saw in my ancient past. A member of a very advanced civilization encountered some earthlings, one of whom was a hotshot mathematical physicist. I found it unbelievable that the Martian -- let's call him that-- could look at the scribbles and immediately say something like, Hmmm . Very interesting ( Why not give that comment a German accent , Hmmm wery eenteresting!)

 

Why was that response of the Martian so surprising? The sheet of paper consisted of nothing but mathematical formulas. No definitions, showing the meanings of the symbols and no explanation of their context in a consistent theory. But , we're expected to conclude, the Martian was, after all, a very advanced intellect.

.

The point is that this would not have helped even that Martian:No definitions, no context. No embedded concepts.

The mathematics is not expected to stand alone in physics. Concept and symbols together.

 

In quantum mechanics, to take an example, the mathematics works. The problem today is not with the symbolic representations of quantum ideas but with the otherwordliness of that microscopic domain; It lies below our experience of this everyday world. Below a certain point, there are no satisfactory metaphors for the behaviors in the microscopic world. Without the mathematics, we couldn't ven have gone there-- or imagined that particular "there".

 

No question that it works. Our present technology, based on quantum mechanics, works famously well. The concepts  are described by the equations. Medical devices, cell phones-- everywhere you turn-- you see evidence that the equiations are concept connected.

 

E.O Wilson's domain in biology, mentioned by Russ, is driven somewhat differently. But, only to touch on another example from biology: Understanding of DNA itself, embedded in modern microbiology, depends on quantum mechanics and its equations. The discovery and exploitation off DNA depend on quantum mechanics, and concept goes hand in hand with the math.

 

Even Newton's laws of motion, described by simple equations, demonstrate that the equations do not stand alone if they are to have any meaning, in the manner described above. And I could now sail into the deep waters of poor education in even simple algebra, and waht that means for the unnecessary "two cultures" we are faced with.

 

I hear again, in response, the refrain that this is not enough. Which makes us tempetd to recognize all that has already been said in these e-mail exchanges.

 

Best New Year to all,

 

Jack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email] ; [hidden email]

Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:03 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] art and science

A fascinating discussion.  E.O. Wilson made much the same point in his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, where he argued that a narrow reliance on mathmatics had destroyed philosophy in particular, while in general an increasing reliance on specialization and mathmatics had handicapped scientists, limiting new hypothesis to variation of current thinking in a particular discipline.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Consilience-Knowledge-Edward-O-Wilson/dp/067976867X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230443706&sr=8-1

 

cjf

 

Christopher J. Feola

President

nextPression, Inc.

www.nextPression.com

 

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] art and science

Hi Jack,

I'd like to take advantage of your post to raise an issue that is related--but not directly--to what you are discussing. 

You wrote, "What has made mathematics so important in science, especially physics, is the need for replacing word-fuzziness with precision in prediction."

Although no one can doubt the importance of mathematics to physics and the other sciences, what do you think of this somewhat contrary position. The damage mathematics has done to science is that it has substituted numbers for concepts.

Mathematics is a language of equations and numbers. Of course equations operate within frameworks, which themselves involve concepts--such as dimensionality, symmetry, etc. These are important concepts. But the equations themselves are conceptless. They are simply relationships among numbers that match observation. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the general public is turned off to much of science. The equations don't speak to them. I would say that the equations don't speak to scientists either except to the extent that they manage to interpret them in terms of concepts: this is the strength of this field; this is the mass of this object; etc. But the concepts are not part of the equations. And (famously) quantum mechanics has no concepts for its equations! The equations work, but no one can conceptualize what they mean. So how should one think about quantum mechanics? As a black box with dials one can read? What should the public think about quantum mechanics if that's the best that scientists can do?

I can think of two primary goals for science: to understand nature and to give us some leverage over nature. Equations give us the leverage; concepts give us the understanding.

-- Russ

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1866 - Release Date: 12/27/2008 8:49 PM

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org