Wich is the sense of beauty?

[twowolves80]

I didn't say time was eternal and unchanging.

 

I said time was fractal, which implies dynamic change that is undending. Banach-Tarski Paradox proved the fractal nature of time when applied to a timeframe instead of the surface of a sphere. Tomato, tomahto. Therefore, it does not contradict the laws of causality. If it did, it wouldn't exist.

[PkSanTi]

I also believe that you are thinking under the common idea that philosophy is just words and thoughts of some thinking folks with no true logic or argumental value. Since logic is also eternal, as you claim, so are logical arguments. Kant and Schopenhauer (these are names, but every philosopher for that matter) used reason to think and logic to argue their ideas. When Kant explained the categories of our mind, and why and how they "shaped" the world, wasn't just talking: was using logical arguments just as logic as the equation 2+2=4 or the Collatz conjecture. So if your argument is, as it seems, "you quoted philosophers, just words that blow into the dust, and I quoted scientist; therefore, my argument is stronger", well, that's a wrong way of understanding both philosophy and science.

 

That's quite a problem of us, as modern people. I love science; I love scripting and maths. But to consider philosophical arguments and concepts worthless just because they lack of "mathematical certainty", as you said, is just prejudice. A syllogism, a chain of premises leading to a conclusion, is pure logic. There were philosophers who were mistaken on how to think just as much as there were scientist who were.

 

That prejudice is almost the only thing that you based your last post here on the topic, in a quite... not diplomatic way, I might add. That leaves us with the fact that, if one chooses to think without it -the prejudice- and to consider both science and philosophy in a more respectful and true way, such as I think I'm doing at least, your whole argument falls apart. I might also add that it'd be good to debate in a peaceful way, and never let our tempers get in the way of reason. This is a poorly philosophical and scientist way of discussing, if I'm allow the half-joke.

 

(I studied anthropology in university, and I'd also add that your conceptions about evolution -that nature is perfect, that it wastes nothing, that seeks the least resistance, etc...) is quite mistaken. All you're doing by saying those things is giving nature some form of intelligence or, to be more precise, building a teleological idea of nature and evolution. Nature doesn't choose or go anywhere; it has no path or destiny. We owe evolution to... randomness! This is, random variations on new-born individuals from a specie, which were by luck fortunate. Nature didn't have the purpose of evolving; evolution happened. And it's a miracle, and it's even more wonderful and stunning if you think it that way. The teleological way of understanding nature, which only result is to anthropologize nature and natural processes, is an old-fashioned, nearly religious way of understanding it, and shares common premises and bases with the idea of a planning god. Descartes thought nature that way; some pretty cool scientist and philosophers of the XIX and XX century refuted him.

 

EDIT: I'd also say that there were three points that made your description of beauty, the universe and harmony weak; we're only debating one. If you give the others credit, you'd be proven wrong anyway: for universal statements such as yours, only one case that doesn't fit what's stated is enough to prove it logically false.

Edited January 7, 2018 by PkSanTi

[twowolves80]

Ha. So in essence, mathematical certainty takes a back-seat to how we want to view the world based on the logical, philosophical constructs we create to interpret the results of the mathematics (which lay outside the purview of opinion and supposition). Do you deny the empirical relationship between reality and mathematics? The only reason we are as sure about as much of reality as we are is because we can perceive it through mathematics.

 

The only thing I seek, therefore, is a mathematical framework as opposed to one of philosophy. Logic can be twisted ad infinitum; mathematical certitude cannot. Therefore, i value mathematics over logic any day of the week. Philosophy is logic viewed from within the system; mathematics is logic viewed from outside the system.

 

And still, the Banach-Tarski theorem stands; time is fractal, and if time is fractal, then space is fractal, too. And if both space and time are fractal, then the sense of beauty is pattern-based, and has a quantifiable mathematical value, even if those values change on a system-by-system basis. This further strengthens my argument that beauty is a recognition of patterns, where that recognition is borne of your current coordinates on a probability tree...eh. Forget it.

 

I guess I am only seeking the reasoning behind the way reality and consciousness interact so that I can determine, and be comfortable with, the fate shared by all of mankind, and failing to find one, I'd prefer to remove myself from the system entirely sooner rather than later, as the entire system then becomes abhorrent and unwanted, something that is reduced to mere puppetry and tired routine.

[TheMastersSon]

The essence of self-realization is an understanding not just of Einstein's relativity theories, but also their logical ramifications. After almost a century our scientists have only just begun moving on from the first of those to the second. Properly understood, if any single center (and therefore source) exists for the universe, it can only be you. When you look at the sky, or even at someone standing across the room, you are not seeing what is, you are seeing what used to be. This is true everywhere and in all directions and the closest you can get to a center or source point is inside yourself. Edited January 7, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[PkSanTi]

To think that "if both space and time are fractal, then the sense of beauty is pattern-based, and has a quantifiable mathematical value" is nothing but to try to reduce everything into a hard, rigid scheme. It's nearly ironic that your view on beauty is similar to Spinoza's view on ethics, since you dislike philosophy so much. To try to reduce ethics into a geometrical order, to try to reduce beauty into a mathematical value, is scientificism, as I said. Also, there's the fact that many cultures consider many different things as beautiful, which discredits a physical or brain-related explanation of beauty -also excludes any explanation that depends on 'reality' or 'mathematical certainty', since nobody could say whether Indian tradition is more precise on its evaluation of beauty than the Greek tradition, and so and so...-. Cleverly, you just passed on that point, which is factual and very real -all this to speak in the terms that you seem to prefer-.

 

But, to go even more back in time, I'll again insist on the Silesius' example -or the poetry example, to be less restricted-: do you think you can precise mathematically the beauty of a verse? Or, to formulate the problem better: why do we perceive as beauty both things that can't be measured such as thing that lack of harmony -Whitman's verses are one iconic example; there are hundred of poets to quote; Joyce's books, Cheever or Kipling, choose the one you like the most-? There are this famous verses on spanish literature:

 

Su tumba son de Flandes las campañas,

y su epitafio la sangrienta luna,

 

by Quevedo, which translates (very, very poorly) into:

 

His grave are from Flandes the campaigns,

and the bloody moon his epitaph.

 

This verses are famous and considered of the most valuables of Quevedo's work. Why? Because of the image it creates, perhaps; the beauty of considering the bloody moon the epitaph of a dead man is quite tremendous. Where's armony there?

 

So we could be the whooole day discussing one of the points I marked before, which was related to philosophy and science; from my point of view, these other two are still standing, and are strong enough to leave harmony out of the picture.

Edited January 8, 2018 by PkSanTi

[twowolves80]

I should have explained it better. Nature generates everything dynamically, in the here and now. There are an infinite number of variations that can occur, and the harmonic patterns occur spontaneously because our brains store memories holographically, so that stored experience, with its own fractal pattern, interacts with the fractal pattern being perceived. When it syncs, it generates harmonic oscillation for want of a better term. Every person is unique, and every person's memories and experiences within a cultural context will be different than someone else's from another culture.

So it's not rigid. Nature is a furnace of creation and according to Banach-Tarski, will never run out of infinite variations. All I did was to apply the Banach-Tarski theorem to the surface of space-time rather than the surface of a sphere.

Because we live in a binary universe, there are two constants: subtractive and additive. Positive/negative. Up/down. Left/right. Beauty lies between the two ends of the spectrum, and I think that when harmony occurs spontaneously we perceive it as beauty

All of reality is a fractal hologram.

So really, the ability of two particles to "communicate" across vast distances instantaneously is not a violation of special relativity's second postulate, but indicative that "both" particles are part of something fundamental underneath reality. So it's all connected, like a hologram.

I therefore think that beauty is perceived as these fractal holograms synchronize spontaneously with the fractal patterns stored in our brains holographically, even though we don't "see" fractals, we see them physically through the sense of sight, or hear them through the sense of hearing, etc.

The fractals don't have to make sense to us--sometimes, the patterns are too big to see, or the intervals are too long. But the math says they are there nonetheless. Those fractal probabilities generate reality dynamically through our self-awareness. This occurs at the quantum level every possible second of the day. I say quantum because these events are occurring in zero space-time intervals as the quantum "froth" of probabilities resolves into hard reality. Sometimes, it resolves in spontaneous patterns, and those patterns are what our brain perceives as beauty as that perceived pattern interacts with the holographic memories stored in our brains. That is why "harmony" is important to this.

[TheMastersSon]

So really, the ability of two particles to "communicate" across vast distances instantaneously is not a violation of special relativity's second postulate, but indicative that "both" particles are part of something fundamental underneath reality. So it's all connected, like a hologram.

If you've never read it, and if you can find it in a decent library instead of on Amazon for 10x its rightful price, read this:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Self-Realization-I-K-Taimni/dp/8170591287

 

It's definitely not a text for fast reading, but fortunately it's very short, just 20 or so paragraphs. Properly understood it's an 11th Century explanation of relativity and our universe.

 

EDIT: Just found out this book is in the public domain due to age. Here's a PDF of it:

 

http://www.discerning-wisdom.com/maha_siddha_herbs/pdfs/The_Secret_of_Self_Realization.pdf

Edited January 8, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[skyquest32]

 

So really, the ability of two particles to "communicate" across vast distances instantaneously is not a violation of special relativity's second postulate, but indicative that "both" particles are part of something fundamental underneath reality. So it's all connected, like a hologram.

If you've never read it, and if you can find it in a decent library instead of on Amazon for 10x its rightful price, read this:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Self-Realization-I-K-Taimni/dp/8170591287

 

It's definitely not a text for fast reading, but fortunately it's very short, just 20 or so paragraphs. Properly understood it's an 11th Century explanation of relativity and our universe.

 

EDIT: Just found out this book is in the public domain due to age. Here's a PDF of it:

 

http://www.discerning-wisdom.com/maha_siddha_herbs/pdfs/The_Secret_of_Self_Realization.pdf

 

Hes more right than you, your wrong in one context.The limits of Einsteins Theory were proved, he got only '''hehehe'' ''particle'' the answer.... by repeated validated scientific experimentation, that can be reproduced at any time to demonstrate this fact. Not just in theory but the limits were disproved as a fact. Shot holes in like a gun fight at the ok coral.

Edited January 9, 2018 by skyquest32

[JimmyRJump]

Beauty is the reflection of light from any object that is perceived by the brain as being in complete harmony with our awareness in combination with our senses and experiences right until that particular moment of perception of the object. Alter the awareness and experience and the perception can/will differ.

 

The same goes for certain words added in a certain sequence. But the written word derives its beauty from the conjured images we associate with the text while reading, thus falling back on my first paragraph.

 

This has me often wondering how a blind person experiences beauty.

[PkSanTi]

In essence, your thesis is that of Berkeley: the savour of the fruit is neither on the fruit nor in the tongue, but in the contact of both. I tend to agree with that -and also you've explained it very clearly and straight-forward, which is a rare thing, so that's appreciated-.

 

If by 'senses' you meant every sense -that would be the reasonable thing to expect-, a blind man could perceive beauty trough sounds, touch and so. It's just a missing sense, which is a missing source of beauty. But this are conjectures of mine that I didn't think carefully enough to consider worth attention.

 

I would only ask if you could explain more precisely what you mean by "in complete harmony with our awareness", because I think of some objections but am afraid of not understanding fully what you meant, so I'd just reserve them until I am sure we are speaking in the same terms. So... what is to be in harmony with our awareness and what makes an object or a thing to be so?