3 ms·
"Beauty", in science and mathematics, is not a quality of the object regarded so much as it is a pattern-recognition response in the one regarding it. Patterns
by charonn0 14y ago
"Beauty", in science and mathematics, is not a quality of the object regarded so much as it is a pattern-recognition response in the one regarding it. Patterns which are predictable are naturally pleasing to us because our pattern-recognition abilities evolved to harness the patterns of nature for prediction of outcomes. Predicting and harnessing outcomes based on patterns may be the power that humans posses in strength over the other animals.
It should not be the case that exploration of an outcome is excluded on the basis that it is not perceived as beautiful. However, that there are patterns among the laws of nature was one of the fundamental discoveries of our species and a guiding principle of modern science.
Richard Feynman said[1]: "Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=j3mhkYbznBk#t=3233s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
- CurtMonash 14y agoWell, that gets us near aesthetic philosophy -- something is beautiful if most relevant people will or should find it beautiful. The distinction between "will" and "should" can of course cause issues, and in this case "relevant people" can be troublesome as well. But as a shorthand, "This is a beautiful theory" is a lot like "This is a theory that seems like it SHOULD -- or at least COULD -- be right".