Is Beauty a Measure of Scientific Progress?

[marcus]

No!.
But I continue thinking that it is interesting the evaluation of the importance of philosophical ideology, including aestetics, in the History of Science and in the actual consideration of Science.
...

History is the mirror in which Perseus can see the Medusa of his own mind

(without being dessicated and paralyzed by introspection)

the history of science must be the most enlightening of all forms of scholarship---or so I suspect.

Do you have a University where you live, which I see is in Spain.
I suppose Madrid is very good.

Do they have a History of Science department where you live?

Unfortunately i do not seem to have enough time to read the biographies of the important scientists of the 20th century. I only meet little parts of the picture by accident
(in Rovelli's textbook of Quantum Gravity there is an enlightening historical account of Einstein thinking 1912-1915 as he was finding Gen Rel,
and a historical appendix at the end-----and also by accident I happened to be reading Artur Koestler's book "the Watershed" about Kepler----and again by accident I had some strong impressions of what Feynman was like from reading a memoir of his---but it is sporadic and accidental, not systematic study)

meeting you, in our brief encounters, is another accident that reminds me how much is to be learned from the ancient and modern history of science.

I also like the book by Timothy Ferris called "Coming of Age in the Milky Way"-----this is what it's all about and why reading the history of humans is really to see the destiny of humans

 

[Imparcticle]

the history of science must be the most enlightening of all forms of scholarship---or so I suspect.

Isn't that an opinion?

 

[ryokan]

Do they have a History of Science department where you live?

Unfortunately, there isn’t any History of Science Department where I live.

My scarce knowledge on this topic arises from casual encounters with books in bookshops and through the information of scientific journals. So, it was, it is, sporadic, anarchic. Recently, Internet was for me a both fascinating and frustrating method to confirm to me that I don’t know nothing on nothing.

From my scant lectures on History of Science, I remember with pleasure older books such as the Astronomy of Fred Hoyle or the autobiographic notes of Max Born, the book of Abraham Pais about Einstein, and of Thomas Kuhn on the copernican revolution, and so on.

I am fascinated by the Physics of the early years of the 20th century and by the biographies of the scientists that have make it possible, with their greatness and their miseries. Unfortunately, my severe limits in mathematics and physics hamper to me enjoy more recent changes. From advances in cosmology, string theories... I only know that they exists and that at a very low divulgative level.

I am reading now the spanish version of "From here to infinity" by Ian Stewart.

For me, meeting you, this accident as you say, was really interesting. This forum reminded to me that there is a world out there.

 

[ryokan]

Beauty, by definition, is an ability to overcome, or raise oneself above, all causal and relational laws of nature. And any theory that permits such an ability to be physically realized is not only quantitative and progressive but also is beauty itself.

By definition?
Of course, progress is independent of previous aesthetic considerations. Nevertheless, I think that personal aesthetic judgements can influence the form in that some scientist perform their theories. My question is best related to the final result. I ask only how can be judge the beauty of a theory or a scientific discovery.
I would reformulate my first question in this thread with a particular case: Is the Mandelbrot set beautiful? Why?

 

[Philocrat]

By definition?
Of course, progress is independent of previous aesthetic considerations. Nevertheless, I think that personal aesthetic judgements can influence the form in that some scientist perform their theories. My question is best related to the final result. I ask only how can be judge the beauty of a theory or a scientific discovery.
I would reformulate my first question in this thread with a particular case: Is the Mandelbrot set beautiful? Why?

Mandelbrot is undisputedly beautiful in that it provides a sophisticated yet very convenient departure from bi-valent quantificational and logical madness. It is progressive and the beauty is in the progress. As you know, for the first time we are able to depart from the macro-world and take a cool trip into a fuzzy world. Before Mandelbrot fractals, fuzzy world or fuzzy realism was inaccessible to any logical or mathematical instruments. Mandelbrot blew open that world and provided us with a beautiful train ride into it.

And remember: the beauty is in the progress of this and the totality of it is even more so!

 

[ryokan]

And remember: the beauty is in the progress of this and the totality of it is even more so!

There is a great level of progress in the alimentary industry, but can we relate beauty to such progress? And I don't will talk on the progress in weapons.
Surely, your reference is only to progress in scientific knowledge, with independence of its practical applications. Yet in such case, theories seem differ in beauty in a different form to their distance in the involved scientific advances. And it remains the question that aesthetic considerations can influence the form in that some scientists have elaborated hypotheses and theories. Of course, Science ever will search the progress in all its fields.

 

[ryokan]

What really count is that eventually only the correspondence with facts remain crucial,on medium and long term at least.Thus the pure 'beauty' part is not crucial,even in this process of designing.Of course seeking elegance,symmetry and so on is worth following,since humans have a developed sense of beauty intrinsically,but basically there is no good reason to follow mainly the 'art' part,as I said science is intrinsically pragmatic even in the process of theory making.

I am in accordance:"only the correspondence with facts remains crucial". But I can also be interested on both the grade of beauty of theories and the influence of the aesthetic judgements can have in the development of theories.
On the contrary, I cannot agree with your assertion on the pragmatism of Science. I think that the aim of Science is the answer to questions, both pragmatic and non-pragmatic. To see if petals of some flowers are related to Fibonacci numbers semms to lack of any practical sense. Are Mathematics ever pragmatic?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am in accordance:"only the correspondence with facts remains crucial". But I can also be interested on both the grade of beauty of theories and the influence of the aesthetic judgements can have in the development of theories.
On the contrary, I cannot agree with your assertion on the pragmatism of Science. I think that the aim of Science is the answer to questions, both pragmatic and non-pragmatic. To see if petals of some flowers are related to Fibonacci numbers semms to lack of any practical sense. Are Mathematics ever pragmatic?

Pragmatic doesn't mean narrowly utilitarian. Mathematicians are very pragmatic; everything is in the service of getting the answer, or proof, or whatever designated outcome.

Flower petals and seeds show Fibonacci patterns because of the rates of growth they stem from.

 

[ryokan]

Pragmatic doesn't mean narrowly utilitarian. Mathematicians are very pragmatic; everything is in the service of getting the answer, or proof, or whatever designated outcome.
QUOTE]
I don't know if you and metacristi use the term pragmatic in the same sense. I agree with the pragmatism of Science in your's wide sense, not in utilitarian sense. Yet, I think that beauty and pragmatism in Science are different concepts. Pragmatism in wide sense (answer to questions) is essential. Aesthetics can be interesting.

 

[marcus]

hello selfAdjoint and ryokan,
I am posting simply for the pleasure of participating in the discussion.
I have a kind of fascination with the role of beauty in mathematical science (or with the human sense of beauty which I think is partly trainable but also partly a genetic inheritance)
But I do not have a stable consistent ideology about this. So what i say today might be different from yesterday.


If in 1903 the Wrights started out to design a flying machine so it would be beautiful this would have been impractical probably and even dangerous. But they were good engineers and they designed it to be buildable and to function---that is to fly and be controllable.

however even in 1903 one could have had a kind of Faith, almost a fanatical confidence, that if one could build it and then keep improving it year after year that eventually the airplanes would be beautiful

one would not know how it would be beautiful and one could not
use one's preconception of what beauty "is" to guide one in designing, necessarily, but one would be absolutely sure with a fanatical belief that one day one would look at the refined improved designs and realize that they are beautiful.

and they are

and I think it is cross-cultural-----that the kid in LA or Inuit kid or Bushman kid or Cambodian kid whether they live in arctic or outback or jungle or next door to LAX airport they will with some high probability think the airplanes are beautiful. Maybe that's wrong and maybe it has non-genetic explanations too. But I think its in the human bloodline, bred into us by millennia of knowing a wellmade weapon or tool.

 

[selfAdjoint]

hello selfAdjoint and ryokan,
I am posting simply for the pleasure of participating in the discussion.
I have a kind of fascination with the role of beauty in mathematical science (or with the human sense of beauty which I think is partly trainable but also partly a genetic inheritance)
But I do not have a stable consistent ideology about this. So what i say today might be different from yesterday.


If in 1903 the Wrights started out to design a flying machine so it would be beautiful this would have been impractical probably and even dangerous. But they were good engineers and they designed it to be buildable and to function---that is to fly and be controllable.

however even in 1903 one could have had a kind of Faith, almost a fanatical confidence, that if one could build it and then keep improving it year after year that eventually the airplanes would be beautiful

one would not know how it would be beautiful and one could not
use one's preconception of what beauty "is" to guide one in designing, necessarily, but one would be absolutely sure with a fanatical belief that one day one would look at the refined improved designs and realize that they are beautiful.

and they are

and I think it is cross-cultural-----that the kid in LA or Inuit kid or Bushman kid or Cambodian kid whether they live in arctic or outback or jungle or next door to LAX airport they will with some high probability think the airplanes are beautiful. Maybe that's wrong and maybe it has non-genetic explanations too. But I think its in the human bloodline, bred into us by millennia of knowing a wellmade weapon or tool.

Well, I for one find the Wright Flyer beautiful. Graceful, minimally designed for its purpose, "Less is More."

Ted Sturgeon once wrote a short story in which an alien walks down an American street, seeing the cars, which he can see through with his X-ray vision. And he wonders why they streamlined the cars on the outside, but not down in the engine.

 

[ryokan]

but one would be absolutely sure with a fanatical belief that one day one would look at the refined improved designs and realize that they are beautiful.
I think its in the human bloodline, bred into us by millennia of knowing a wellmade weapon or tool.

Yes. That is perhaps the question with Philocrat.
There was progress in the Wrights plane, but not yet refinement.
Beauty would be associated in some form to evolution of theories towards ... Simplicity? Power of prediction? Unification? I don't know, but this evolution and its final result would be perceived as aesthetic pleasure.
In the Aristotle's Poetics art is imitation, mimesis. It is possible that the beauty of a scientific theory express its mimesis, its fitness to Nature.

 

[ryokan]

Godfrey Harold Hardy wrote:
The mathematician's patterns, like the painter's or the poet's must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in this world for ugly mathematics.
A Mathematician's Apology. London 1941.

What do you think about this "test"?

 

[marcus]

both these last two posts are pretty good, ryokan

also they are short, which is nice

I don't think of anything to add

 

[Philocrat]

And a theory that helps find or discover the 'Best or Perfect Convergence formula' for structional and functional perfection would be the most beautiful of them all. Perfect Convergence formula is any theory that allows things and what are left of their final properties to survive physical destruction. Scientists should stop being demoralised and start finding this formula!

 

[ryokan]

Scientists should stop being demoralised and start finding this formula![/B]

I don't think that scientists be demoralised. On the contrary, I believe that Science is optimistic in the search of knowledge.
I see that again you identifies beauty with progress.