Why do we see symmetry everywhere in science and nature?

[Klystron]

I don't understand what you mean...What does it mean for a "center" to "hold"?

I was employing a poetic reference from Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

Letting you know that many other creative people share your angst.

 

[etotheipi]

But I found many paintings where the focus is in the centre, so I don't know what you mean saying the painter cannot put the focus in the centre?

 

[BillTre]

Symmetries also often nice looking can become boring if they are always present.

Art often involves deviations from something (like symmetry) which are then used to attract attention.
Controlling the way attention is focused is behind a lot of visual art and page layout design. There are many visual tools for doing this.
The better this is done, the better the art (I conjecture).

Another view:
What can be seen as superficially symmetric, can be revealed to be asymmetric at deeper levels.
An example is the human body, largely symmetrical when viewed externally, but with many asymmetries hidden internally.
A deeper understanding is achieved through the appreciation of the underlying asymmetries.

In explanations:
Symmetry is nice, in that the explanations would seem to be simpler.
A simpler explanation is appealing for Occam razor-like reasons.
Asymmetries arise when forced to deal with exceptions.

 

[Klystron]

But I found many paintings where the focus is in the centre, so I don't know what you mean saying the painter cannot put the focus in the centre?

View attachment 280605View attachment 280606View attachment 280607

Not all paintings, surely. Your first two selections suffice to emphasize mild asymmetries in art.

Look at La Giocanda's mouth, that famous quirky smile. See the angle of her body. What is she grasping in one hand? Is she balancing her body on the nearly invisible arm of the chair? Leonardo contradicts the mundane Earth tones of Mona Lisa's sedate gown with a devastated asymmetrical background.

Vincent's portrait of brother Theo as himself wearing poor disheveled clothing, the misshapen hat, the iconic single ear, scream out of the canvas "Ayudame, por favor! Help me, while you can."

Stare into the asymmetric eyes and view the halo of insanity surrounding Van Gogh.

By now you can recognize the incongruity of the third painting. A green apple substitutes for Everyman's face. The very fact that the figure is rigidly centered emphasizes the satire; decries the sameness of the brick wall separating Modern Man from the stormy seas. Great choices!

 

[etotheipi]

Woah, that's so cool! I hear you man, I like how you gave them all a little story, helps me to see where you're coming from

What's up with the one you just posted? Is the brown thing supposed to be a wall separating order from chaos? What are those guys on the road doing?!? It's funny, it looks sort peaceful but also violent and stormy at the same time. I guess it's the whirly brush strokes and stuff.

i could totally get into this art thing, haha

 

[jedishrfu]

As an aside, there is a well-known painting by Edvard Munch called The Scream where it has an eerie sunset in the background and the reason it was there:

https://skyandtelescope.org/press-releases/astronomical-sleuths-link-krakatoa-to-edvard-munchs-painting-the-scream/

Sometimes paintings capture real-life events.

 

[bhobba]

Isn't that a meaning?

That's an old one. It is well known Feynman was antiphilosophy, to the point of during philosophy class at MIT, spending his time drilling small holes in his shoes with a drill he had. The issue of course is thinking philosophy is useless is itself a philosophy - so you are caught. Feynman actually did have a philosophy if you listen to his public lectures like The Character Of Physical Law. In fact I think it better than what professional philosophers like Popper came up with - IMHO of course.

Life is just a cruel joke, nothing is important and we'd be better off if nothing ever existed

Yes that is a position some take. But as Feynman said - physics is not important - love is. He just loved math and physics - and creating 'stories' about himself as just a hick from Far Rockaway who has seen through city slicker ways - despite how much it annoyed the guy in the office next door - Gell-Mann. By posting here you must at least like science - so you are caught in the same trap as Feynman's antiphilosophy. Gell-Mann held a related but slightly different view:

Personally I am with Gell-Mann on this, sorry Richard.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Klystron]

Woah, that's so cool! I hear you man, I like how you gave them all a little story, helps me to see where you're coming from

What's up with the one you just posted? Is the brown thing supposed to be a wall separating order from chaos? What are those guys on the road doing?!? It's funny, it looks sort peaceful but also violent and stormy at the same time. I guess it's the whirly brush strokes and stuff.

i could totally get into this art thing, haha

You have a good eye for art as do many mathematicians. I chose that van Gogh for the swirling asymmetries and the two happy bro's sauntering out of the frame to mow hay. The thick layered painting style is called impasto, from the same root word as pasta.

Medical people like to diagnose artists from their work and in Vincent van Gogh's case they may be correct: the artist suffered from severe astigmatism and possibly cataracts aggravated by working en plein air, outdoors under bright sun. Vincent saw and painted waving grain fields almost like walls so thickly did he paint.

His astronomical bodies lack the pointy 'twinkling' stars common to astigmatism but his portraits indicate a hyper-dominant eye that might have distorted his depth perception. Hence the blocks of waving grain under the intense swirling atmosphere. Typical of fine art and even science, an original work may be answering or arguing with a contemporary point of view; such as impasto over pointillism.

Luckily Vincent's brother Theo owned art galleries and kept Vincent supplied with samples of the latest oil paints. Impasto requires lots of paint. Van Gogh was known for squirting entire tubes of expensive paints on his palette and arriving home smeared with colors.

 

[etotheipi]

Medical people like to diagnose artists from their work and in Vincent van Gogh's case they may be correct: the artist suffered from severe astigmatism and possibly cataracts aggravated by working en plein air, outdoors under bright sun. Vincent saw and painted waving grain fields almost like walls so thickly did he paint.

His astronomical bodies lack the pointy 'twinkling' stars common to astigmatism but his portraits indicate a hyper-dominant eye that might have distorted his depth perception.

It's pretty amazing that people can deduce that just from looking at the paintings. I read another article discussing something similar:

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-curious-subculture-diagnosing-dead-artists-work

which says that Monet also began developing cataracts, and that there was a marked difference between his paintings before his surgery and the more expressionistic and vibrant works after his surgery.

 

[bhobba]

It's pretty amazing that people can deduce that just from looking at the paintings.

I prefer to say - TRY to deduce it. Literature, art etc., majors do it all the time and debate what they think. I am not much good at it, at least my teachers thought so, so guess what - literature, art etc., is not my thing - even though I read voraciously. Another factor is that if you feel you are not any good at something, it tends not to appeal. Feynman didn't like art much, but he eventually made a deal with an artist to teach him art and teach him physics. Finally, he became a decent artist. I sometimes think we could be destroying a lot of talent because teachers categorise people and do not put effort into developing a hidden talent. I am not a fan of FORCING people to study things they do not like or want to, beyond what is necessary as general knowledge to function in our society. The line is debatable. To be generally educated, I think calculus is required. Others believe a foreign language is necessary, which I do not. That whole area makes for an exciting debate. I even think everyone who can get a degree before they leave school at 18 should be part of general free education - in the US; you now have some schools where you graduate with both an HS diploma and associate degree. We are developing similar schools here in Aus - the difference is a Diploma is equivalent to an associate degree.

Thanks
Bill

 

[paradisePhysicist]

In your own words, why do humans look for and prefer symmetries in mathematics, physics, philosophy and in general?

Do they? A lot of people like asymmetrical architecture and art. I think people want balance (a mix of symmetry and asymmetry.)

 

[bhobba]

Do they? A lot of people like asymmetrical architecture and art. I think people want balance (a mix of symmetry and asymmetry.)

It isn't that many prefer symmetries. I think Feynman's view on the matter is also common:

The idea is we see it so often, that when it is not true (and indeed sometimes it is not true) we find it, as Feynman would say, interesting.

As mentioned previously in the thread I am with Gell-Mann on this one. He thinks it is simply as we go from level to level eg - classical to quantum to QFT to we do not know at the moment - many things get preserved - but some do not. It is the origin of beauty in physics and the answer to Wigner's famous essay:
https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf

Thanks
Bill