As a scientist ( physics then astrophysics) I am very comortable
of unknowables that are developed within science and mathematics
the most obvious of these is goedel's theorem in math and i have lived
all my life with the understanding that certain things in the universe
are unknowable- eg beyond the event horizon in general relativity
eg you cant know even theoretically about the internal stucture
of a black hole (or before the big bang) because signals cant
get out- you can know the mass and charge, angular momentum
of a black hole but
not about much more ( the famous 'no hair' problem)
yeah i know that stephen hawkin has been nibbling away at this
in complexity theory ( not my field) we understand that we cannot
predict in detail the future state of a complex system derived from
the interaction rules between the components- because certain
properties are 'emergent"
I found this interesting article by John Casti of the Santa Fe Institute
on The Outer Limits: In Search of the "Unknowable" in Science
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/96-01-001.pdf
Casti talks about a number of unknowables such as Alan Turing's
Halting Problem.,
interestingly he talks about the Heiseberg uncertainty principal
which i had thought argues that one cannot know to infinite precision
both the location and velocity of a quantum particle- Casti argues
this might be a mathematical limit to understanding not a physical limit
he discusses at some length whether some things are fundamentally
"uncomputable" - we recently argued at length with mathematician
and computer artist frieder nake who feels strongly that many
pheonena are theoretically uncomputable
he describes the problem as one of mapping either mathemical models or
computer models on to the natural world
i am very comfortable
with the idea that certain things about the world
are supernatural in the sense that they can not be modelled either
with mathematics or computer models= or are theoretically unobservable
such as the interior structure of a black hole
of course this use of the word super natural is not the common one
and could be misleading
like paul i dont think pseudo science enters into this discussion
but i must admit Lilian has got me thinking about pseudo art
my friend and physics colleague jean marc levy leblond indeed
would argue that most art science is pseudo art !!
roger malina
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:13 AM, aprille best glover
<aprille@aprille.net> wrote:
> Dear Yasminers,
>
> I'm usually a happy lurker on this mailing list but for whatever reason this discussion has got my hackles up.
>
> If you love and care about science it is easy to be lulled into forgetting that Science has two intertwined histories. One is a beautiful quest for knowledge using a method of reasoning that over time leads to deep insights into the nature of our universe. This is the one we talk about most of the time. The other is a secular religion that worships a historical-social conception of technological progress and power - knowledge being a particularly potent form of power. This is history we would like forget or at least ignore.
>
> One of those histories gave up Darwin. The other gave us Social Darwinist who measured skulls to scientifically prove that European Men were "more intelligent" than women or their colonial subjects and created human zoos right up until WWII for scientifically curious public. The Social Darwinists are not isolated incident but part of reoccurring historical pattern that stretches back at least to the Renaissance.
>
> I having been working art project in which I have been doing a lot of reading from European historical record. This whole discussion thread reads like Church fathers discussing heterodoxy. And yes this discussion also reads like many 18th and 19th scientific journals that I plowed through filled with culturally biased pseudo-science alongside real research about the natural world.
>
> I don't believe in ghosts and gods, prayer, miracles, eternal life, predestination, faith-healing, exorcism, burned witches, winged humanoids, sin, punishment, heaven, hell, voodoo either. Unfortunately Science is riddled with its own superstitions not the least of which is desperation for certainty. It easy to forget in the euphoria during periods of technological progress like today that in reality it has taken centuries of work by some of the greatest minds ever to understand how little we actually know.
>
> For example how little we know about even basic material processes. Look at the Standard model in physics. In order to make the equation work and explain the universe requires the inferred existence of something on the order of 68.3% dark energy and 26.8% dark matter Realistically, we can only measure a small portion of the rest. Forget biology, we don't even understand completely how cancer works much less the brain. Neuroscience, although exciting, is in its infancy, the number and complexity of connections in the brain being orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. You can quibble with me about using wikipedia as a easy source or percentages and exact numbers but that doesn't add a drop to the small sum of human knowledge. When Physics the HARDEST of the sciences can only possibly measure around 5% of the universe isn't time for some humbleness in the face of reality?.
>
> I believe that eventually we will, with the scientific method, discover those answers, but that is a belief. It is a belief every bit as superstitions and illogical in its own way as those of ghosts and gods. The universe may be filled with black swans of all sorts that may mean the scientific project itself is a fool's quest. Let us hope for better.
>
> There is also another uncomfortable truth lurking here. Most of the major problems we face as humans, ranging from global warming, environmental degradation to still constant threat of nuclear war arose from the superstitions of science not from the superstitions of ghost hunters and UFO quacks. Those problems will need science to fix. Yet how can scientists speak with credibility about these problems, if they refuse to knowledge the elephant in the room? Attacking the relatively harmless, if illogical, beliefs of others without acknowledging the consequences of your own illogical beliefs isn't just inconsistent, it could now potentially threaten our ability to survive as a species.
>
> I don't believe that those posting in this discussion are ignorant neo-Social Darwinists, or lobbyists for the weapons and petrochemical industries either. I believe this discussion is meant in good faith. Faith here is a key word. However the way scientists generally learn the history of Science contributes both to scientific progress and to a certain groupthink. The bulk of the history of Science is resides in nasty blind alleys of cultural prejudice which science majors are rarely taught about or are taught in a way that minimize the impact on the triumphant march of scientific progress (now there is a fairytale.) Unfortunately that groupthink often makes it difficult for scientists to understand how the rest of the world sees them as a group. Even how their rhetorical methods actively discourage many rational people from accepting any or certain parts of the good scientific evidence available. If there is any point in an artist who cares about science contributing in a discussion like Yasmine, it is because artists do not approach the history of ideas from that same blinkered perspective. Our blinkers are entirely different, but that is another discussion.
>
> Thanks for your attention to such a long, heated post.
>
> work too hard, think too much and have way too much fun,
> Aprille
>
> Aprille Best GLOVER
> 22, la grand rue
> 41800 Lavardin
> France
> +33 (0)6 47 95 28 76
>
> blog (english et français) http://le-grand-livre.com
>
> www.aprille.info (english)
> www.aprille.fr(français)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
--
Roger F Malina
wondering what all the buzz is about
creative disturbances
Is in Dallas right now
for very very urgent things phone/text me me
+1-510-853-2007
url: artscilab.utdallas.edu
blog: malina.diatrope.com
Disturbances coming: http://creativedisturbance.org/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
