(Untitled)

[rei_c]

(Obligatory squee at the time and how FAST it seems to be passing: AIEEEIEIEIE!)

The thing about SoB Crit is that it's so timely. As found in this article from the New Yorker:

Comments

[roundegotrip]

String theory really is the new macro-evolution. Connect-the-dots theory that appears to be unprovable scientifically, but which some 'scientists' latch on to for the sake of having something to hang their theoretical research hats on. These people are correct in one thing, though: Nature is not [always] simple. But they're still missing the point. Nature isn't always simple, but it is logical.

I would argue that it's not as much the simplicity of a theory that makes it beautiful, as its logic.

The beauty of nature is not abstract, but quite the opposite. It is logical, structured, complex. We are in awe of nature and the physical universe, not because it is simple or abstract, but because it is vast and complicated, to the point of being generally beyond our understanding.

The theory of relativity takes an incredibly complex set of interactions and lays them out in a digestible fashion, as an aid to understanding. I thank Einstein because he took the things about the universe which he was able to perceive before anyone else, and explained them to us so that we could perceive them also.

I don't appreciate the simplicity of it (anyone who has seriously studied relativity can attest that there's nothing simple about the concepts OR the math involved...). What I appreciate is the logical breakdown of those concepts... the pieces of a huge puzzle which have been fit together for me.

Einstein's theory in and of itself is only beautiful in the same way a painting of a lily is. The painting is considered beautiful for its skillfully distilled or stylized representation of the lily. But the real, primary source of beauty is the lily itself. In much the same way, where the theory of relativity (or any truly scientific theory for that matter) is concerned, the real, primary beauty comes from the amazing activities of our physical universe.

[rei_c]

I would argue that it's not as much the simplicity of a theory that makes it beautiful, as its logic.

I'm very definitely in agreement here.

I've never been much for physics -- I always preferred chemistry, to be honest -- but string theory has always been intriguing to me simply because it supposes that there are answers. I love the humanities for all of the grey zones, but I love science for the concrete-ness it provides, often more stable than my own life. There is an inherent sense of beauty in logic, in following something from beginning to end and seeing it laid out step by step.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on this whole debate and see how SoB Crit fits in with everything. It was just really, really wonderful to see that the theoretical juggernaut I'm working on has meaning outside of lit/art studies.