Marc, I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction).
Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic pervade his work! Cheers, Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Two issues I wish to mention, here. > > Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality, > culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and > morality, all in a few brief sentences ;) > > Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who > recently died. > > As regards the first issue: > > It’s been said there are clear ways to determine physical and > mathematical facts, but nothing similar for values. But, in point (2) > below I point out what appears to be an objectively existing set of > values which underlies *all* of science. I present two brief but > profound points that I what readers to consider and ponder carefully: > > Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from > a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy > density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase > in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in > a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the > laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn’t true > that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws > of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly > express the fact that there is. > > Point (2) the whole of science relies on Occam’s razor, the idea that > the universe is in some sense ‘simple’. It must be emphasized that > Occam’s razor pervades all of science – it is not simply some sort of > ‘add on’. As Popper pointed out, an infinite number of theories could > explain any given set of observations; therefore any inductive > generalization requires a principle – Occam’s razor – to get any > useful results at all. > > Here is the point that most haven’t quite grasped - Occam’s razor is > *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of ‘simplicity’ is *a set > of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of > saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which > is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only > works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. > > If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that > the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective > preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how > could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that > all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical > contradiction. > > Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without > appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the > universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density). > Why? Occam’s razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science. > The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam’s razor is a > set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian > result could be obtained. > > *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments* > to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific > result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value > judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith > on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science! > > The secret to intelligence is aesthetics, not Bayesian math. > Initially, this statement seems preposterous, but the argument in the > next paragraph is my whole point, so it merits careful reading (the > paragraph is marked with a * to show this is the crux of this post): > > *As regards the optimization of science, the leverage obtained from > setting the priors (Occam’s razor – aesthetics – art) is far greater > that that obtained from logical manipulations to update probabilities > based on additional empirical data (math). Remember, the aesthetic > principles used to set the priors (Occam’s razor) reduce a potentially > infinite set of possible theories to a manageable (finite) number, > whereas laborious mathematical probability updates based on incoming > empirical data (standard Bayesian theory) is only guaranteed to > converge on the correct theory after an infinite time, and even then > the reason for the convergence is entirely inexplicable. > > The * paragraph suggests that aesthetics is the real basis of > intelligence, not Bayesian math, and further that aesthetic terminal > values are objectively real. > > For those who do initially find these claims preposterous, to help > overcome your initial disbelief, I point to a superb essay from well- > respected computer hacker, Paul Graham, who explains why aesthetics > plays a far greater role in science than many have realized: > > ‘Taste for Makers’: http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html > > As regards the second issue, I’d like to draw readers’ attention to > computer scientist Randy Pausch. Randy Pausch was a computer scientist > who developed the famous ‘Alice’ software to teach programming in a > virtual reality setting. He was a virtual reality expert, a professor > in Human-Computer Interaction at Carnegie Mellon University. In > August, 2007 he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given 3-6 > months to live. He gave a famous ‘Last Lecture’ which spread virally > (via ‘YouTube’) and inspired millions (this was followed by a book > ‘The Last Lecture’). He died on 25th July, 2008 . > > The Randy Pausch Memorial Footbridge connects the Gates Center for > Computer Science, with an adjacent arts building, symbolizing the > bridge between art and science. > > Randy Pausch Home Page: http://download.srv.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/ > > > > > -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---