Crosswords2 mins ago
Beautiful Ideas.
98 Answers
Do you find the natural world beautiful?
Does this world embody beautiful ideas?
Does this world embody beautiful ideas?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
By coincidence, from this morning's BBC news site. Please note jomifl these are described as 'discoveries' not inventions, and arguably can be considered to be beautiful ideas embodied in the universe.
http://
http://
I wonder what was even the point of writing all those long posts, since essentially the only point you've bothered to pick up on is an (admittedly misinterpreted) aside on musical notes.
I'm well aware of the beauty in mathematics, probably more so than most as it is, after all, my job. The question is what you read into that beauty. You appear to be determined to read design -- I've argued, without reply so far, that beauty is in some sense enforced in order to have anything existing at all, not just a happy choice that appeals to aesthetic considerations.
I'm well aware of the beauty in mathematics, probably more so than most as it is, after all, my job. The question is what you read into that beauty. You appear to be determined to read design -- I've argued, without reply so far, that beauty is in some sense enforced in order to have anything existing at all, not just a happy choice that appeals to aesthetic considerations.
Appreciation of sound isn't about maths. It is about the nature of sound itself.
Resonators that are fixed at one end (including pipes with one open end such as reed instruments) resonate in odd harmonics, (geometric thirds or sonic fifths) while those which are not fixed (including pipes with both ends open, such as the flute) resonate in even harmonics (geometric doubles or sonic octaves).
These first order resonance also produce octaves and fifths of their own hence the higher orders as described by Pythagoras. This series of octaves and fifths characterise all resonators and we expect to find them both in all sounds to some extent but with each order reduced in amplitude.
Musical chords are arranged using these same frequencies but at amplitudes where the second and third order harmonics are of similar magnitude to the fundamental. This produces a sound of an uncharacteristic resonator that is familiar in its harmonic frequencies but novel in the relative amplitudes because the amplitude does not dampen at higher orders.
The Pythagorean Comma (the gap in the circle of fifths) as mentioned by mibn2cews is nothing to do with natural sound but an artefact of the mathematics that tries to satisfy a coincidental pattern.
Resonators that are fixed at one end (including pipes with one open end such as reed instruments) resonate in odd harmonics, (geometric thirds or sonic fifths) while those which are not fixed (including pipes with both ends open, such as the flute) resonate in even harmonics (geometric doubles or sonic octaves).
These first order resonance also produce octaves and fifths of their own hence the higher orders as described by Pythagoras. This series of octaves and fifths characterise all resonators and we expect to find them both in all sounds to some extent but with each order reduced in amplitude.
Musical chords are arranged using these same frequencies but at amplitudes where the second and third order harmonics are of similar magnitude to the fundamental. This produces a sound of an uncharacteristic resonator that is familiar in its harmonic frequencies but novel in the relative amplitudes because the amplitude does not dampen at higher orders.
The Pythagorean Comma (the gap in the circle of fifths) as mentioned by mibn2cews is nothing to do with natural sound but an artefact of the mathematics that tries to satisfy a coincidental pattern.
jim //I've argued, without reply so far, that beauty is in some sense enforced in order to have anything existing at all, not just a happy choice that appeals to aesthetic considerations.//
Very well put.
Moreover, as part of the result of this underlying order it should be unsurprising that we find it appealing.
Very well put.
Moreover, as part of the result of this underlying order it should be unsurprising that we find it appealing.
The natural harmonics of musical notes do not exactly fit the 12 semitone scale imposed by convention. Based on the note of C the only notes that approximately coincide with its harmonics are G(third),A(5th) and B(7th). fudging the notes slightly up or down to get a better fit resulted in the 'evenly tempered scale'. If we had a scale based on true harmonics we would probably have hundreds of notes in an octave. Fortunately most peoples ears (including mine) aren't sufficiently discriminating to notice the shortcomings of the conventional scale which is why it (to us) can produce beautiful music. It is probably only the deficiencies in our hearing that make music what it is. I once knew a guy who was tone deaf, all music however out of tune, sounded great to him.
jim; //I wonder what was even the point of writing all those long posts, since essentially the only point you've bothered to pick up on is an (admittedly misinterpreted) aside on musical notes.//
That simply is not true, apart from the music, I have covered art, aesthetics and symmetry in both nature and architecture.
//The question is what you read into that beauty. You appear to be determined to read design// Well, guilty as charged there, and if you don't want to see it; 'You can lead a horse to water.... etc.'
// beauty is in some sense enforced in order to have anything existing at all,//
You say that you've argued that without reply. That is because I don't understand what you mean. What or whom is doing the enforcing?
Finally, a quote for the day:
"Science is reticent when it comes to a question of the great unity of which we somehow form a part, the popular name for it in our time is God."
Erwin Schroedinger
That simply is not true, apart from the music, I have covered art, aesthetics and symmetry in both nature and architecture.
//The question is what you read into that beauty. You appear to be determined to read design// Well, guilty as charged there, and if you don't want to see it; 'You can lead a horse to water.... etc.'
// beauty is in some sense enforced in order to have anything existing at all,//
You say that you've argued that without reply. That is because I don't understand what you mean. What or whom is doing the enforcing?
Finally, a quote for the day:
"Science is reticent when it comes to a question of the great unity of which we somehow form a part, the popular name for it in our time is God."
Erwin Schroedinger
Your comments on symmetry in nature essentially repeated my own, so I don't really consider that a reply, I guess.
What's your obsession with quotes appealing to authority? They're lovely soundbites but not much more than that.
"What or whom is doing the enforcing?"
This is probably a weakness of English rather than anything else. What I am trying to express is something like "the existence of the Universe itself enforces beauty on the grounds that if the Universe were not beautiful then it would not exist." That is, you can't even have a universe unless you admit an underlying structure; the one imposes the other.
What this means for the creation of the Universe I can only philosophise rather than prove, but I suppose the key point is that beauty can't be taken as evidence of design. Or, at least, design is certainly not the unique explanation for the beauty observed in the universe.
What's your obsession with quotes appealing to authority? They're lovely soundbites but not much more than that.
"What or whom is doing the enforcing?"
This is probably a weakness of English rather than anything else. What I am trying to express is something like "the existence of the Universe itself enforces beauty on the grounds that if the Universe were not beautiful then it would not exist." That is, you can't even have a universe unless you admit an underlying structure; the one imposes the other.
What this means for the creation of the Universe I can only philosophise rather than prove, but I suppose the key point is that beauty can't be taken as evidence of design. Or, at least, design is certainly not the unique explanation for the beauty observed in the universe.
Perhaps I should say, strictly, that you can't have a Universe in which anything interesting happens without some sort of structure. Or maybe I was right first time, thinking about the symmetries of space-time.
The point is anyway that Beauty is far more a necessity, or even a consequence, of the existence of the Universe in its present state, than it is an optional extra, "chosen" for its appeal.
The point is anyway that Beauty is far more a necessity, or even a consequence, of the existence of the Universe in its present state, than it is an optional extra, "chosen" for its appeal.
jim //What's your obsession with quotes appealing to authority? They're lovely soundbites but not much more than that. //
Because he doesn't understand that ideas in science stand on their merits regardless of who proposed them.
Khandro is stuck on the "wise man" model so popular with religion and other fascist philosophies.
Because he doesn't understand that ideas in science stand on their merits regardless of who proposed them.
Khandro is stuck on the "wise man" model so popular with religion and other fascist philosophies.
What I think you are saying Jim is that we have evolved to find 'beautiful' the things that enable us to survive.
On an art note, I recall an American professor of some sort analyzing why (some)humans find landscape paintings so appealing. He came to the conclusion that they depict the kind of landscape where primitive humans would find shelter food and water in abundance. Persuing this line of reasoning further, perhaps appreciation of some kinds of art is a response to primitive instincts. It would account for so many nudes being painted. :-)
On an art note, I recall an American professor of some sort analyzing why (some)humans find landscape paintings so appealing. He came to the conclusion that they depict the kind of landscape where primitive humans would find shelter food and water in abundance. Persuing this line of reasoning further, perhaps appreciation of some kinds of art is a response to primitive instincts. It would account for so many nudes being painted. :-)
jomifl; You said earlier; //If I could be bothered I could also make up a list of big names to support any argument however ridiculous.//
Can you be "bothered" to give me a list of "big names" better than mine, who say categorically, "There is no God", I don't think so. You can probably trundle out a few who might say they don't believe in God, and I think even then, they are probably limiting themselves to the biblical, Abrahamic variety. The ones I can quote; Einstein, Heisenberg (not the one from 'Breaking Bad'), Max Planck, Schroedinger and lots more, - in other words the big hitters, all cast a rather wider net. Are you with them?
Can you be "bothered" to give me a list of "big names" better than mine, who say categorically, "There is no God", I don't think so. You can probably trundle out a few who might say they don't believe in God, and I think even then, they are probably limiting themselves to the biblical, Abrahamic variety. The ones I can quote; Einstein, Heisenberg (not the one from 'Breaking Bad'), Max Planck, Schroedinger and lots more, - in other words the big hitters, all cast a rather wider net. Are you with them?
Take any good book or thesis, look in the index and bibliography, and you will find copious references to other books and authors, indicating passages and quotations from which the author has gleaned information and support.
The strange thing about AB, (and nowhere else I find), is that whenever I give a quotation from an eminent source to support my argument, I get the peevish responses such as those above.
"A nice attempt at a sidetrack Khandro, but you have tried it before..//
So have you my friend. Can't you even drag out that scientific midget, Dawkins?
The strange thing about AB, (and nowhere else I find), is that whenever I give a quotation from an eminent source to support my argument, I get the peevish responses such as those above.
"A nice attempt at a sidetrack Khandro, but you have tried it before..//
So have you my friend. Can't you even drag out that scientific midget, Dawkins?
Khandro, I guess that it is because you come from an 'art' world that you place so much importance on the subjective opinions of your peer group.
Science on the other hand places more importance on fact and logical(mostly) reasoning. Consequently I don't care what peoples opinions are if they can't justify them, that includes all the big names you could ever think of..Why you should think Einstein's views of god should have any relevance I can't imagine. After all he wasn't a cleric was he?
Science on the other hand places more importance on fact and logical(mostly) reasoning. Consequently I don't care what peoples opinions are if they can't justify them, that includes all the big names you could ever think of..Why you should think Einstein's views of god should have any relevance I can't imagine. After all he wasn't a cleric was he?
