World Science Scholars

1.6 Truth and Beauty Discussion

discussion Discussion

Discussions are a place where registered users can click on Reply to share their ideas and questions that follow from the material we’re covering. All users can view the conversation and indicate their like or dislike for a specific comment.

Viewing 9 reply threads
    • Do you agree that science has continuously faced a tension between truth and beauty, and that mathematics defines the standards of beauty?

    • I don’t know if this tension has always existed but I agree that now the problem of testability vs. mathematical elegance is one I hear often around such subjects as string theory, quantum gravity and many worlds, for instance. I think beauty is a human construct, and that in general aesthetics are not yet definable by math, and I don’t know if they ever will be.

    • One of the things we can say for certain is that the universe is not static, but a highly dynamical system. This dynamical quality has been continuously observed in all things in the universe from the quanta to the macro. It therefore is silly to assume that any understanding of such dynamism itself would, or should be static; clearly the universe is accelerating in dimension, thereby affecting all things within its boundary. The fact that we’ve come to understand to the best of our current ability such astounding resolutions into the quantum world, shows no indication that we’ve reached some limiting case scenario. The fact that the universe appears essentially flat in shape, and that this flatness as well as quantum qualities of gravity are described successfully in string theory, is highly relevant that these cumulative studies should naturally be continued as a field of study yielding such rich descriptives, however above current understanding it may be. The fact that mathematics so successfully describes the physics of the universe, indicates that it’s a translatable language of high applicability to our understanding of the universe. To extend the concepts of maths into other areas of describing time and space as for example, as a spacetime expression in music, as well is an excellent mathematical translation of values moving through time. It appears that humans have been endowed to contemplate the universe by finding beauty and truth, across time. Our ancestors had concepts of infinity, initial conditions, entropic finality, invisible forces, order, harmony, and universal mind fully embedded in their cultural organizations. Today, we use the combined translation-studies of physics and maths for much the same, continued deeper-seeking of beauty and truth in our relationship with the universe. This trend will only continue, like the dynamical expansion of the universe. The question remains open as to whether we will continue to merge our understandings further to mirror the most powerful engine of the universe itself, or peter out like the stray planets that are found somehow drifting afloat outside their decoupled ellipses… Somehow ejected as lifeless asteroids void of life, subject to the will of gravity.

    • fgff

    • The problem with beauty is “beauty according to whom?”. Sounds like a subjective thing. Although if you ask David Deutsch, he says even beauty is objective and we just “discover” beauty, we don’t invent it.

    • I think the Beauty of reality (equations that describe the properties of things relative to their context) is the same difference between the simplicity (beauty) of conic sections compared to the entire conic itself or between a fractal and it’s Julia sets. In that sense I think it is beautiful that we are even able to recognize that the greater hypothetical shape that contains the multiverse of iterations of the constituent things with “real” properties is a possibility. I think beauty is relative simplicity rather than truth. I actually think “ truth “ other than the emergence we all can visualize bounded by the limits of observation from inside reality isn’t possible to be understood. But of course the all encompassing truth (the complete truth) isn’t what physics is for. It’s for the potential of finding game changing utility.

    • Math is part of the language of science. This part of math help us to clearly explain reality “truth”. For me this is enough to be defined as beautiful.

    • Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

      When we see the move to higher energies as allowing for a unified theory, there is a basis. Is simplification also beautiful?

      Nature seems to have patterns that replicate. The symetry of a swirling planet is seen in the solar system and in the galaxy. So is Darwinianism wrong? Is it all about survival of the beautiful?

      Paradoxidals of smaller constituent parts are what i am suspending, because particle physics keeps finding more and more charms, spins, and lego pieces of atomic structure. So while atomic is atomic, i am unsure i can agree with the attempt to maintain the beauty concept of complicated designs.

      Proof of the 2nd point of natures` patterns being there is one universe, to support a grand unified theory. This is possible.

      When we see political party talk to gain votes, we see persuasive logic. The logic of beauty transcends us and we serve beauty, so it is a logical premise that can enlist passions.

      When we look at Darwinianism as being incorrect, we can observe the survival of the beautiful.

      It is necessary.


      Nazi philosophies based on Darwin allow genocide. The survival of the beautiful is a woman based option allowing us to appreciate beauty.

      The mech warfare able to wipe out populations are very real, so to combat Darwin and Nazi collaborations, beauty as an alternative is a very real, and perhaps dire necessity.

      Truth and beauty coexist. They are virtues of a higher energy. One heals, the other motivates.

      Is it mathematical that beauty makes us smile? Restoring humanity from electronics requires history in all things. This may not make us smile.

      Does appeal have math to it? The symetries of nature do, yes, have appeal.

    • Further proof on the convergence of three of four forces is in Prof. Barry Berin`s course on this platform of World Science Uni.

      It is a math. I am unsure to class an authorized and predicted fact as beautiful.

      Prof. Berin talks of how one his colliders needed to be only 10% bigger to prove just that point.

      That is a Nobel prize winner talking and it is incredible to listen.

      Thanks to Prof. D for this course. .

    • Beauty can be found in all things, what you perceive as beautiful centers your concentration by activating your desire for it. So find something beautiful to your mind and pursue it.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend