5 ms·
No. As poetry, this is fine. From a rationalist point of view, this is muddled. As science, this is not much less naive than, say, What the Bleep Do We Know. Yo
by andywood 17y ago
No. As poetry, this is fine. From a rationalist point of view, this is muddled. As science, this is not much less naive than, say, What the Bleep Do We Know. You seem to be motivated, ahead of time, to arrive at a conception of the universe that is inspiring, and makes you think life worth living. This is a sure path to rationalization. You shouldn't expect, ahead of time, that whatever the truth of reality is will turn out to be steeped in redemptive qualities. This will cheat you out of the chance to be ok with whatever is true, because it is true, and not because you find it conforms to your wishes after all.
- lotharbot 17y agoRecognizing that everything has a wavelength is science. Interpreting the interactions of those various wavelengths as "music" (rather than merely "noise") is poetry. That interpretation is neither muddled nor naive. It's just not science.
- jey 17y agoWhat's unscientific about seeing beauty in the way reality actually works as described by science? They seem entirely orthogonal to me. Beauty is a subjective human trait -- i.e., a property of wetware running in the meat computers of bipedal apes. So it's silly to expect subjective judgments about beauty to be held up to a rationalistic/scientific standard.