Science & Art

[Resha Caner]

I've begun reading a technical paper on methods for symbolic solutions to a certain class of problems. The author was apparently feeling a bit poetic, as he opens with this statement:

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is
everything else we do.

Thoughts?

 

[durangodawood]

...explain to a computer.....

What does that even mean?

 

[Speedwell]

I've begun reading a technical paper on methods for symbolic solutions to a certain class of problems. The author was apparently feeling a bit poetic, as he opens with this statement:

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is
everything else we do.

Thoughts?

Including religion.

 

[Chesterton]

Art.
Is whatever.
You can get.
Away with.

I disagree with both sentences. Science is a certain way of thinking about the world, and you actually can't explain it to a computer, which can't think. And if you call everything art you rob it of it's meaning, rob it of actually being something. If everything is art, there is no art.

 

[Radagast]

Science is a certain way of thinking about the world, and you actually can't explain it to a computer, which can't think.

I assume that "explain it to a computer" means "represent the theory as a computer program." Fluid dynamics, for example:

 

[Resha Caner]

I assume that "explain it to a computer" means "represent the theory as a computer program."

Yes, that is how I took it. In simple terms for the simple, it seems to claim science is quantifiable.

Further, there are multiple connotations of "art". There is the art that searches for beauty and meaning as Chesterton used the term. But in the quote I think it refers to a talent for doing things that are not easily taught or explained. Engineers (my profession) often use the term "art" in such a way.

As I said in the OP, I take the statement as poetic, and it seems there are many who have trouble grasping poetic statements; they instead try to parse it as if language is always a computer algorithm - which it is not.

Another (disputed) quote in the paper was from Whitehead:
The ultimate goal of mathematics is to eliminate any need for intelligent thought.

The paper I refer to is called "A=B", and it is about "proof machines", which are algorithms for the symbolic solution of equations. The point of these statements in the context of the paper is that proofs used to be considered an art - there was rarely a known algorithm for proving mathematical propositions. As time goes on, however, more and more propositions are being proven as undecidable, or a proof machine is found for them.

My opinion, though, is that every time something is established as undecidable, or a proof machine is found, it simply opens up new unknown possibilities. It seems to be a Godelian sort of thing. If, for example, someone were to actually settle the question of P = NP, I would be surprised.

 

[Chesterton]

Further, there are multiple connotations of "art". There is the art that searches for beauty and meaning as Chesterton used the term.

That's not how I used the term. I referred to the meaning of the word "art" itself. It doesn't necessarily have to search for beauty and meaning, but it has to do something more specific than "everything else". Words have to have meanings or else they're meaningless.

As I said in the OP, I take the statement as poetic, and it seems there are many who have trouble grasping poetic statements; they instead try to parse it as if language is always a computer algorithm - which it is not.

I take the statement as poetic also, which is how I criticize it - as bad poetry. Using the metaphorical phrase "explain to a computer" - might as well say I explain to my microwave oven when I input instructions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The diversity of meaning of 'Art' resembles the diversity of meaning of 'Game'. As Wittgenstein said, instances of each have 'family resemblances' but don't necessarily share any common feature.

A fairly encompassing meaning of art is 'whatever is presented for aesthetic appreciation', but that doesn't cover it all.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, that is how I took it. In simple terms for the simple, it seems to claim science is quantifiable.

A bit more than that, but yes.

As time goes on, however, more and more propositions are being proven as undecidable, or a proof machine is found for them.

Proof machines are relatively rare, afaik.

If, for example, someone were to actually settle the question of P = NP, I would be surprised.

I wouldn't be.

 

[Resha Caner]

I take the statement as poetic also, which is how I criticize it - as bad poetry. Using the metaphorical phrase "explain to a computer" - might as well say I explain to my microwave oven when I input instructions.

I think the use of "explain" is apropos for the context in which it's used. As for the poetic value of microwaves, I couldn't say unless I read such a poem.

But you don't like it. Fair enough. What fun is poetry if opinions never vary?

That's not how I used the term. I referred to the meaning of the word "art" itself. It doesn't necessarily have to search for beauty and meaning, but it has to do something more specific than "everything else". Words have to have meanings or else they're meaningless.

I agree, but the phrase was not, "Art is everything." A distinction was being drawn. So would you agree art is at least a part of the distinction between science and not-science? If so, what other distinctions would you add?

 

[morse86]

When you can take 1 bone in the dirt and reconstruct an ENTIRE creature....that's some real $cientific $$$$$$art. Where is the peer review process on that?!?!?

 

[Resha Caner]

I wouldn't be.

No? So you're familiar with P = NP?

Since we're in a poetic frame of mind, to me proving P = NP (or P ~= NP) is different from other mathematical questions. It becomes a bit twisted up with knowing the unknowable or knowing the unknowable is unknowable ... IOW it heads toward silly, meaningless constructs like rocks too big to lift.

 

[Radagast]

Proof machines are relatively rare, afaik.

Except in the trivial sense of the British Museum algorithm.

 

[Resha Caner]

Except in the trivial sense of the British Museum algorithm.

A= B is claiming something more powerful than that - something that can solve a host of binomials, elliptic functions, etc.

 

[Radagast]

No? So you're familiar with P = NP?

Fairly familiar. I'm quite convinced that P != NP, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to prove that (eventually).

This is not me:

 

[Resha Caner]

Fairly familiar. I'm quite convinced that P != NP, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to prove that (eventually).

Oh, I agree. I'm convinced P ~= NP as well, but proving it is quite another matter. I got all geeky on the subject for awhile, and came away also believing it will never be proven. All we need is the new Lobachevsky to set everyone straight on the modern version of the parallel postulate.

 

[Radagast]

A= B is claiming something more powerful than that - something that can solve a host of binomials, elliptic functions, etc.

Well, there are a (growing) bunch of decision algorithms, but it doesn't take much for your problem domain to grow beyond that. See: Decidability (logic) - Wikipedia

 

[Radagast]

I got all geeky on the subject for awhile, and came away also believing it will never be proven.

I think someone will prove it; and we will all kick ourselves, saying "why didn't we think of that?"

 

[Resha Caner]

I think someone will prove it; and we will all kick ourselves, saying "why didn't we think of that?"

I'll bet you a poetic coffee.

 

[Radagast]

I'll bet you a poetic coffee.