Posted by
Grant Holland on
Dec 29, 2015; 1:02pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Physicists-and-Philosophers-Debate-the-Boundaries-of-Science-Quanta-Magazine-tp7586966p7587012.html
Nick,
Good question. Before I answer, lemme introduce some terminology.
With respect to this discussion about "art", I admit that what I'm
really getting at is my particular take on the "mythos versus logos"
issue - with my notion of "art" falling on the "mythos" side.
In my notion of "art", the artist "sends a message" to an "audience"
(receiver) - just like in information theory. But the difference
lies is the
focus of interest in what happens once the
message is received by the "audience" of the art. In information
theory, the focus is on whether the message is received correctly,
and associated probabilities and entropies. However, in my version
of "art" (or mythos), I don't start getting interested at the time
that the message is recieved. In fact, I don't get interested until
this received message
evokes or
arouses retained
information (memories?) that lies within the mind of the audience.
Moreover such an evocation must become the focus of the attention of
the audience (message receiver) before I am willing to say that "art
has happened". (And, any attention on the part of the audience on
the initial received message has been dropped at this point.)
Usually, that evoked information represents an embellishment by the
receiver and is often much richer than the direct content of the
received message itself. It is this embellishment that is the focus
of interest, and intent, of the artist - even though the artist does
not directly control it.
In such a situation, my interest lies more in the multiple ways that
these evocations on the part of different "audiences" might be
different from each other. And I am less interested in how much they
are the same. So, unlike Shannon, I'm not worried that any kind of
"chance variation" has occurred across multiple listeners. In fact,
as an artist, I am
celebrating that degree of chance
variation rather than trying to reduce it - as I would be whenever I
am engaging in "logos", such as when I am "doing science".
I'm simply saying that I observe such a phenomena taking place right
in the middle of "artists doing art" - and it interests me. And that
is what I call an "instance of art". I'm not arguing any particular
point - only expressing an interest in a phenomenon that I observe.
HTH,
Grant
On 12/28/15 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson
wrote:
Thanks,
Grant,
I
am still a bit confused, perhaps because I don’t really know
how to play the “information” word game very well.
In
information theory, I thought communication was defined as
any change in the response probabilities of the receiver
that was due to the content of the message.
So
the elicitation of images by a poem, WOULD be the transfer
of information.
Am
I wrong about that?
I
guess I am pushing this point because metaphors seem to me
to be extremely important operators in science. Take
“natural selection”, for instance.
Nick
From:
Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers
Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine
Don't take this as a lexical definition;
but rather as my own peculiar way of choosing to understand
art.
I see art as a form of communication that
attempts to arouse or evoke information (e.g. imagery) from
within the minds of audience members to the forefront of the
minds of those members.
Generally, in this form of communication,
the "audience" is expected to be human-like (in a sense that
I am unprepared to define at present).
This form of communication is as opposed
to "information transfer". One way to describe the
difference is that ambiguity is expected, even desired, in
the former, but eschewed in the latter.
Another difference is that Shannon's
theory applies to the latter but maybe not so well to the
former.
According to this view, science can be,
and often is, art.
Anyway, this is the best I can do for
now. I hope I have conveyed my meaning.
Grant,
Aw.
Come on. Try. I stipulate that it’s not easy.
N
From:
Friam [[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and
Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science |
Quanta Magazine
Some nebulous one, for sure.
Grant
Sent from my iPhone
Grant,
What
is the implicit definition of “art” you are running
with there?
Nick
From:
Friam [[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[hidden email]>;
Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and
Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science |
Quanta Magazine
Mathematics
already went through this "crisis of confidence" in
the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky
and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean,
geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the
soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability
- consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate
with respect to his other four. This was followed
historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who
engaged naked logic to expose a number of
counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire
hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an
attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for
all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to
further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic
from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by
Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.
The result of all of this, according to my
understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see
itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the
universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it
owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see
itself as a "constructor of logically consistent
models, regardless of their verifiability".
Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure
abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure"
pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied
mathematicians.
I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my
recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold
to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of"
resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its
assumed need for verifiability about a century ago.
It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure
mathematics as art - not science.
Should physics give up its similar insistence on
verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the
ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?
Grant
On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen
Densmore wrote:
But
amazingly, there are fantastic young grad
students doing the impossible in this field ..
testing at the Planck limits. Often using the
universe itself to test its own theories.
One
of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing
towards a void in space which suggests
"gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a
multiverse lump hidden from us but not by
gravity.
Why
is there Something, not Nothing gets to be
fascinating when the big bang was sparked by
less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is
thought nowadays.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com