This is a fantastic introduction, and such an immense undertaking ! I'm going to have to read it a few more times i think :) Though i thought i'd share something because the passage where you wrote that no visual artists went to space (before 2021 that is) reminded me of Alexei Leonov - a russian cosmonaut, the first man to walk in space in 1965. He was artist first, and joined the military to support his family. He somehow found his way in the soviet space program and was the first person to make art in space - a view of the sun made with colorpencils. To think of the diffculty to bring *anything* in space, and the dangers of it at the time, and they still found a way to give him paper and pencils... He made a lot of paintings about his space travels, as well as a more "finished" rendition of the sketch he did in space (you can see it in this article https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/31/first-picture-space-cosmonauts-science-museum-alexei-leonov and here an account of his first mission that absolutely gave me vertigo https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/the-nightmare-of-voskhod-2-8655378/ ) I know you were making a point about the hurtful split between art and science when it comes to the exploration of the universe, and the point stands ! But i cannot help but think of Alexei doodling in space, unaware he is the exception to the rule x)
Oh, I didn't know Leonov had managed to draw in space! Thank you so much for the feedback.
And thanks for the links! Just read them; wow, his account of his space-walk, and the problems they had getting back to earth afterwards, and the FURTHER problems they had after landing 1500 km off course in Siberia, is terrific. I really appreciate you taking the time to find those links, and include them.
And more recently actor William Shatner went into space and came back a changed man having seen the Earth as a tiny island upon which the whole of human history has played out floating in the immense darkness of space. Would that every person could see their home from such perspective. Years ago I came across a short anonymous poem that captures this sense, which I’ve embellished:
If the Earth was only a few metres in diameter,
floating above a field somewhere,
people would come from everywhere to marvel at it.
I love your approach and the Grandmother Paradox is perfect :)
Like you, I’ve taken a wide interest in many facets of human activity.
Long ago, I concluded that science was largely based on the derivation of mathematical models of theoretical forms and their theoretical properties that together with certain theoretical constants and theoretical laws, determine their theoretical behaviour
We say a theory is valid when the theoretical behaviour of the theoretical forms maps or predicts the observed behaviour of observed forms. That is all.
No theory can ever get at the ‘essence’ of the forms, or of this Consciousness in which and to which the theories and the observations appear.
Nor can they say anything about the ‘lived experience’: the thrill and terror of battle, eating a meal with friends, arguing with the kids, listening to a sublime symphony or dancing to the beat of hard rock, noticing the foul stench of rotting garbage in a back alley... or any of the infinite experiences that arise within Awareness.
Thanks for that Hofstadter paper! Analogical thinking is also central to my work, so I'm intrigued by this project. Personally, I've gotten along with science a lot better since I realized that it's analogical just like everything else, and therefore also a kind of fiction or poetry...so I'm all for more visible literature/science hybrids.
Hi! Usually I don't comment on things, but this reminded me of an article I read a while back about an astronaut artist who did paintings about space when he returned. Couldn't find the article again, so I'm just linking to the wikipedia page here, and another site that shows his paintings. The article explained the stories behind two of his paintings, The Fantasy and The Fabulous Photo We Never Took.
Ah, lovely stuff Ezz, thanks. Yes, Alan Bean is strong evidence for my proposal that space needs more artists! The experience forced him to become an artist in order to fully articulate his response. Writing a scientific report wasn't enough.
Love how you think Julian and your writing is astronomical!! This explains why I, a person who loves the sky, star watching, the planets, the nebulas, and all things the universe, have never took to the science of it. I always felt it was too boring. I enjoy swimming in the Big picture and dipping in and out of every detail along the way. So pleased to be doing this with you! A galaxy of gratitude to you.
Kimberly, I am so pleased that my approach works for you. That's exactly what I am trying to do; reach those people who love their direct contact with the universe, their glimpses of the stars and planets, but who can't understand why our scientific descriptions of it all are so dry and lifeless.
The meaning of data; the data of meaning. I'm fascinated to see where this ends up, having faced the exact issue of The Grandmother Problem (specifically how to evaluate something from the humanities realm with a method borrowed from the field of mathematics) in one of my own research papers. Thank you for this most intriguing introduction!
Very excited about this. I think one of the most interesting periods that I hope you will end up talking about in this project is the time when the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was being developed. To vastly oversimplify, you see a physicists following the math, achieving very powerful mathematical models that match the data, and then being forced to do at least a bit of philosophy to try to understand what they had actually made.
Mmmm, yes, that's a fascinating fork in the road of science. Michael Frayn wrote an entire play about it, Copenhagen. Very successful play, too. Later filmed.
If you haven't read it, you might want to check out the superb AEGYPT tetralogy by a writer named John Crowley (most famous as the author of the equally-superb stand-alone novel LITTLE, BIG). The first of the four volumes is called THE SOLITUDES. It's half set in the 1970s, half in the1500s, and is a mainstream historical fantasy novel. The historical parts have a number of characters, but its two main characters are John Dee and Giodorno Bruno. No spoilers, but the latter dies in the tetralogy. Not, however, at its end. Anyway you might enjoy them. They're brilliant books.
(Just landed here via the "I wrote a story for a friend" post & am poking around...)
It's unclear to me what problem you are trying to solve.
Yes, science has its own specialized language which is not amenable to expressing certain aspects of human experience. So what? Music also has its own specialized language (one that is largely opaque to me, not being musical myself). Other domains have their specialized approaches and terminology as well.
Yes, there are many questions within the domain of science, such as the motion of spiral galaxies you mentioned, that remain unexplained by science. Again, so what? No rational scientist claims that science is omniscient, and Nature doesn't always reveal her secrets on a schedule that is convenient for us. Sending poets into space is not going to solve the riddles of spiral galaxies and dark matter.
To the extent modern science has problems -- and I agree with you that it does -- I think these come from neglecting the need for difficult, time-consuming experimentation and data analysis, instead taking the easy path of "expert" opinion, computer models that are not empirically validated, and mathematical speculation. The latter is the problem Sabine Hossenfelder addresses in her "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" book.
Science has other problems as well, such as politicization, the reproducibility crisis, and neglect of Feynman's dictum to be honest about the evidence both for and against one's pet theory. But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the language of science or the scientific method.
I totally understand your reservations about my project, and I think your views would be widely shared within the mainstream scientific community. But I do think the problems faced by cosmology go deeper than you (and the mainstream) think. The problem isn't that the motion of spiral galaxies remains unexplained by science; it's that the approach that has failed to work for the past fifty years is likely to continue not working, particularly now that all research in that area uses computer simulations that assume dark matter is the answer, and then force out a semi-plausible-looking universe by adjusting up to ten or a dozen free parameters. You can prove anything with that many free parameters. It's not even science any more, it's CGI.
I completely agree. Thus my disdain for the widespread replacement of experiment by (perhaps overfitted) computer models. IMO, one of the problems with modern physics is the reification of mathematics a la the Pythagoreans rather than the recognition that physics is fundamentally an empirical science. Math should be used as a tool to explain reality, not to replace it.
But I don't think you can extrapolate from problems with cosmology, string theory, and perhaps other disciplines that have stagnated lately to all of science. Biology in particular is thriving -- at least if you steer clear of the politically contentious branches. When young people interested in science ask me whether they should pursue physics, chemistry, or biology, I always say biology, because that's where the excitement is and where progress is being made. (Alas, I am not a biologist myself, so I'm not just talking my book here.)
Again, I'm not clear on the scope of the problem you are trying to solve. If the issue is simply that cosmology calls for new approaches, that seems like a worthy endeavor. Compared to other branches of physics, cosmology is challenging because neither controlled experimentation nor close inspection of the phenomena are possible.
In light of these difficulties, perhaps what is needed is a recognition that cosmology is currently a scientifically immature field like psychology. In both fields there is a huge amount of interesting data and some degree of phenomenology to "explain" many observations. But there is no unified theory of the mind in one case or the universe in the other that ties the data together in a consistent way. Maybe cosmologists need to get comfortable with saying, "We don't know. We don't know when we will know. But in the meantime we'll keep gathering data and trying to come up with ideas." Or maybe you will help crack the problem.
I agree in part DH. But as one with a science degree, I see the world of “follow the science “ as an arrogant, demanding, relationship destroying ideology. Science must be put in check as suggested here because it is becoming a “god” and rule the world with its dictatorial mandates and language. Which will increase with the use of AI which uses this language exclusively and is given more rule over us with the promise of convenience.
I think one must distinguish between two different phenomena, one healthy, the other pathological but unfortunately growing:
Science: the practice of the scientific method to reveal the laws of nature, which includes rational debate and acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Scientism: the treatment of the theories and proclamations of designated scientific authorities as dogma to be accepted on faith without question, the stifling of rational debate, and refusal to acknowledge uncertainty or credible alternative hypotheses.
Last night I had a dream … it felt repetitive and I mostly remember the colors… but at end , there was an odd looking man whose arms were extended in front of him and in one hand he held an egg and in the other a rock. I didn’t understand and woke up immediately.
I typed “an egg and a rock” into the browser and a couple of things came up. An
African proverb but it didn’t resonate and further down the page, an article entitled:
“The egg and the rock.” This .
I knew there would be something to it.
Love this project. I’ve already shared the link with three others who I believe will feel equal enthusiasm.
Well, that recommendation pretty much makes you my ideal reader, because I quote approvingly, and extensively, from Anderson’s excellent paper in one of my earliest posts. Delighted to have you as a subscriber! Please throw any other suggestions that occur to you my way, because I have definitely not read everything in this area, and you are definitely on my wavelength.
Late in the game, just joined, still catching up. Excellent endeavour - I'm currently following with interest also David Deutsch (through TokCast podcast) - maybe you're already reading him too and I'll see that as I catch up with the rest of the posts.
Just found your book Julian and I am very much enjoying it so far. When I explain math to my children I tell them, 'There are two roads between what is inside of you and the outside world. Math and Art. You have to use one or both of these roads to get things from the outside in or from the inside out.'
The real tragedy of Bruno's story to me is that it was the Church that killed a man for seeing, killed many men for seeing. The old medieval concept of the Two Swords-the spiritual and the worldly, and the need to keep these two swords out of the same hands, is very helpful here. Our ancestors grappled with a church that had overrun the state and seized its power, we grapple with a state, and its scientific and media handmaidens, that has overrun the church and is making a new one according to its own brainless ideas. Two sides of the same rotten coin. We live in a world of blind men and I can't help but think of the Lord's words to their ancestors so long ago, 'If you said you were blind you would have no sin, but because you say 'I see' your sin remains.'
This is a fantastic introduction, and such an immense undertaking ! I'm going to have to read it a few more times i think :) Though i thought i'd share something because the passage where you wrote that no visual artists went to space (before 2021 that is) reminded me of Alexei Leonov - a russian cosmonaut, the first man to walk in space in 1965. He was artist first, and joined the military to support his family. He somehow found his way in the soviet space program and was the first person to make art in space - a view of the sun made with colorpencils. To think of the diffculty to bring *anything* in space, and the dangers of it at the time, and they still found a way to give him paper and pencils... He made a lot of paintings about his space travels, as well as a more "finished" rendition of the sketch he did in space (you can see it in this article https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/31/first-picture-space-cosmonauts-science-museum-alexei-leonov and here an account of his first mission that absolutely gave me vertigo https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/the-nightmare-of-voskhod-2-8655378/ ) I know you were making a point about the hurtful split between art and science when it comes to the exploration of the universe, and the point stands ! But i cannot help but think of Alexei doodling in space, unaware he is the exception to the rule x)
Oh, I didn't know Leonov had managed to draw in space! Thank you so much for the feedback.
And thanks for the links! Just read them; wow, his account of his space-walk, and the problems they had getting back to earth afterwards, and the FURTHER problems they had after landing 1500 km off course in Siberia, is terrific. I really appreciate you taking the time to find those links, and include them.
And more recently actor William Shatner went into space and came back a changed man having seen the Earth as a tiny island upon which the whole of human history has played out floating in the immense darkness of space. Would that every person could see their home from such perspective. Years ago I came across a short anonymous poem that captures this sense, which I’ve embellished:
If the Earth was only a few metres in diameter,
floating above a field somewhere,
people would come from everywhere to marvel at it.
They would walk around it,
admiring the large and small pools,
and the water falling and flowing in between
In awe, they'd examine under their microscopes
the bumps and hollows,
the fascinating creatures on the surface,
and in the water, as well as the
amazing diversity of plant life,
birds and insects.
The patterns of clouds and storms
swirling in the thin blue haze surrounding it,
lit by lightning, resonant with thunder
and the sounds and scents of all life.
It would surely astound them.
The ball would be the greatest wonder known.
People would want to protect it...
because it was the only one.
I love your approach and the Grandmother Paradox is perfect :)
Like you, I’ve taken a wide interest in many facets of human activity.
Long ago, I concluded that science was largely based on the derivation of mathematical models of theoretical forms and their theoretical properties that together with certain theoretical constants and theoretical laws, determine their theoretical behaviour
We say a theory is valid when the theoretical behaviour of the theoretical forms maps or predicts the observed behaviour of observed forms. That is all.
No theory can ever get at the ‘essence’ of the forms, or of this Consciousness in which and to which the theories and the observations appear.
Nor can they say anything about the ‘lived experience’: the thrill and terror of battle, eating a meal with friends, arguing with the kids, listening to a sublime symphony or dancing to the beat of hard rock, noticing the foul stench of rotting garbage in a back alley... or any of the infinite experiences that arise within Awareness.
Good luck... I’ll be reading :)
Thanks for that Hofstadter paper! Analogical thinking is also central to my work, so I'm intrigued by this project. Personally, I've gotten along with science a lot better since I realized that it's analogical just like everything else, and therefore also a kind of fiction or poetry...so I'm all for more visible literature/science hybrids.
Yes, isn't that Hofstadter paper TERRIFIC? And you are definitely in the right place for a bit of literature/science hybridisation...
Hi! Usually I don't comment on things, but this reminded me of an article I read a while back about an astronaut artist who did paintings about space when he returned. Couldn't find the article again, so I'm just linking to the wikipedia page here, and another site that shows his paintings. The article explained the stories behind two of his paintings, The Fantasy and The Fabulous Photo We Never Took.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bean
http://www.alanbeangallery.com/dualperson-story.html
Ah, lovely stuff Ezz, thanks. Yes, Alan Bean is strong evidence for my proposal that space needs more artists! The experience forced him to become an artist in order to fully articulate his response. Writing a scientific report wasn't enough.
Love how you think Julian and your writing is astronomical!! This explains why I, a person who loves the sky, star watching, the planets, the nebulas, and all things the universe, have never took to the science of it. I always felt it was too boring. I enjoy swimming in the Big picture and dipping in and out of every detail along the way. So pleased to be doing this with you! A galaxy of gratitude to you.
Kimberly, I am so pleased that my approach works for you. That's exactly what I am trying to do; reach those people who love their direct contact with the universe, their glimpses of the stars and planets, but who can't understand why our scientific descriptions of it all are so dry and lifeless.
The meaning of data; the data of meaning. I'm fascinated to see where this ends up, having faced the exact issue of The Grandmother Problem (specifically how to evaluate something from the humanities realm with a method borrowed from the field of mathematics) in one of my own research papers. Thank you for this most intriguing introduction!
Ah, yes, then you know exactly what I am talking about...
Very excited about this. I think one of the most interesting periods that I hope you will end up talking about in this project is the time when the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was being developed. To vastly oversimplify, you see a physicists following the math, achieving very powerful mathematical models that match the data, and then being forced to do at least a bit of philosophy to try to understand what they had actually made.
Mmmm, yes, that's a fascinating fork in the road of science. Michael Frayn wrote an entire play about it, Copenhagen. Very successful play, too. Later filmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_(play)
Yes, a very good play
If you haven't read it, you might want to check out the superb AEGYPT tetralogy by a writer named John Crowley (most famous as the author of the equally-superb stand-alone novel LITTLE, BIG). The first of the four volumes is called THE SOLITUDES. It's half set in the 1970s, half in the1500s, and is a mainstream historical fantasy novel. The historical parts have a number of characters, but its two main characters are John Dee and Giodorno Bruno. No spoilers, but the latter dies in the tetralogy. Not, however, at its end. Anyway you might enjoy them. They're brilliant books.
(Just landed here via the "I wrote a story for a friend" post & am poking around...)
Ah! Dee and Bruno, together at last! Sounds good. Thanks for the tip...
Julian a large scope! But I am looking forward to it. I think you can break it down to do able.
I hope so!
It's unclear to me what problem you are trying to solve.
Yes, science has its own specialized language which is not amenable to expressing certain aspects of human experience. So what? Music also has its own specialized language (one that is largely opaque to me, not being musical myself). Other domains have their specialized approaches and terminology as well.
Yes, there are many questions within the domain of science, such as the motion of spiral galaxies you mentioned, that remain unexplained by science. Again, so what? No rational scientist claims that science is omniscient, and Nature doesn't always reveal her secrets on a schedule that is convenient for us. Sending poets into space is not going to solve the riddles of spiral galaxies and dark matter.
To the extent modern science has problems -- and I agree with you that it does -- I think these come from neglecting the need for difficult, time-consuming experimentation and data analysis, instead taking the easy path of "expert" opinion, computer models that are not empirically validated, and mathematical speculation. The latter is the problem Sabine Hossenfelder addresses in her "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" book.
Science has other problems as well, such as politicization, the reproducibility crisis, and neglect of Feynman's dictum to be honest about the evidence both for and against one's pet theory. But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the language of science or the scientific method.
I totally understand your reservations about my project, and I think your views would be widely shared within the mainstream scientific community. But I do think the problems faced by cosmology go deeper than you (and the mainstream) think. The problem isn't that the motion of spiral galaxies remains unexplained by science; it's that the approach that has failed to work for the past fifty years is likely to continue not working, particularly now that all research in that area uses computer simulations that assume dark matter is the answer, and then force out a semi-plausible-looking universe by adjusting up to ten or a dozen free parameters. You can prove anything with that many free parameters. It's not even science any more, it's CGI.
I completely agree. Thus my disdain for the widespread replacement of experiment by (perhaps overfitted) computer models. IMO, one of the problems with modern physics is the reification of mathematics a la the Pythagoreans rather than the recognition that physics is fundamentally an empirical science. Math should be used as a tool to explain reality, not to replace it.
But I don't think you can extrapolate from problems with cosmology, string theory, and perhaps other disciplines that have stagnated lately to all of science. Biology in particular is thriving -- at least if you steer clear of the politically contentious branches. When young people interested in science ask me whether they should pursue physics, chemistry, or biology, I always say biology, because that's where the excitement is and where progress is being made. (Alas, I am not a biologist myself, so I'm not just talking my book here.)
Again, I'm not clear on the scope of the problem you are trying to solve. If the issue is simply that cosmology calls for new approaches, that seems like a worthy endeavor. Compared to other branches of physics, cosmology is challenging because neither controlled experimentation nor close inspection of the phenomena are possible.
In light of these difficulties, perhaps what is needed is a recognition that cosmology is currently a scientifically immature field like psychology. In both fields there is a huge amount of interesting data and some degree of phenomenology to "explain" many observations. But there is no unified theory of the mind in one case or the universe in the other that ties the data together in a consistent way. Maybe cosmologists need to get comfortable with saying, "We don't know. We don't know when we will know. But in the meantime we'll keep gathering data and trying to come up with ideas." Or maybe you will help crack the problem.
I agree in part DH. But as one with a science degree, I see the world of “follow the science “ as an arrogant, demanding, relationship destroying ideology. Science must be put in check as suggested here because it is becoming a “god” and rule the world with its dictatorial mandates and language. Which will increase with the use of AI which uses this language exclusively and is given more rule over us with the promise of convenience.
I think one must distinguish between two different phenomena, one healthy, the other pathological but unfortunately growing:
Science: the practice of the scientific method to reveal the laws of nature, which includes rational debate and acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Scientism: the treatment of the theories and proclamations of designated scientific authorities as dogma to be accepted on faith without question, the stifling of rational debate, and refusal to acknowledge uncertainty or credible alternative hypotheses.
On this we fully agree.
I agree DH. We must separate science from religion, politics, and all and all answers to the universe. I appreciate your input.
I may not understand everything Julian but I like the direction you’re taking us. Keep going...
I may not understand everything Julian but I like the direction you’re taking us. Keep going...
Last night I had a dream … it felt repetitive and I mostly remember the colors… but at end , there was an odd looking man whose arms were extended in front of him and in one hand he held an egg and in the other a rock. I didn’t understand and woke up immediately.
I typed “an egg and a rock” into the browser and a couple of things came up. An
African proverb but it didn’t resonate and further down the page, an article entitled:
“The egg and the rock.” This .
I knew there would be something to it.
Love this project. I’ve already shared the link with three others who I believe will feel equal enthusiasm.
I just subscribed so I haven't looked through all the comments but if you haven't read it, the paper More is Different by PW Anderson really speaks to some of the issues with reductionism that you touch on: https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf
Well, that recommendation pretty much makes you my ideal reader, because I quote approvingly, and extensively, from Anderson’s excellent paper in one of my earliest posts. Delighted to have you as a subscriber! Please throw any other suggestions that occur to you my way, because I have definitely not read everything in this area, and you are definitely on my wavelength.
Here’s a link to that earlier post:
https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/in-which-i-talk-about-minecrafts
On boy I'm very excited to work my way through your last year of posts!
Late in the game, just joined, still catching up. Excellent endeavour - I'm currently following with interest also David Deutsch (through TokCast podcast) - maybe you're already reading him too and I'll see that as I catch up with the rest of the posts.
Just found your book Julian and I am very much enjoying it so far. When I explain math to my children I tell them, 'There are two roads between what is inside of you and the outside world. Math and Art. You have to use one or both of these roads to get things from the outside in or from the inside out.'
The real tragedy of Bruno's story to me is that it was the Church that killed a man for seeing, killed many men for seeing. The old medieval concept of the Two Swords-the spiritual and the worldly, and the need to keep these two swords out of the same hands, is very helpful here. Our ancestors grappled with a church that had overrun the state and seized its power, we grapple with a state, and its scientific and media handmaidens, that has overrun the church and is making a new one according to its own brainless ideas. Two sides of the same rotten coin. We live in a world of blind men and I can't help but think of the Lord's words to their ancestors so long ago, 'If you said you were blind you would have no sin, but because you say 'I see' your sin remains.'