The other day our friend Jeremy sent out a link to the following intriguing picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solvay_conference_1927.jpg
It is a really cool picture, especially coming from my physic background. Particularly, as an array of personalities and minds.
This picture in turned spawned an interesting IM conversation between Chris and I. I've been having a lot of thoughts lately about how we view science and religion in our society. Ultimately, all the minds that have influenced are children of God, souls, and plainly human. Something I think we sometimes forget.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
By the way, Chris and I have often had conversations I wish I could have written down. It is the type of conversation that though I'm participating I feel I'm watching from it the outside. Kind of like watching two ideas face-off, rather than two people. And for me, the best ones always end with a consensus of truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solvay_conference_1927.jpg
It is a really cool picture, especially coming from my physic background. Particularly, as an array of personalities and minds.
This picture in turned spawned an interesting IM conversation between Chris and I. I've been having a lot of thoughts lately about how we view science and religion in our society. Ultimately, all the minds that have influenced are children of God, souls, and plainly human. Something I think we sometimes forget.
------------------------------------------------
10:03 AM me: a quote from Dirac
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite."
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite."
10:04 AM Christopher: Dirac was a jerk
10:05 AM me: uhhh... ok
Christopher: He's saying that poetry is meant to obfuscate the obvious
and contrasting that to the clarify of science
10:06 AM It reflects his atheism
me: yea, and sometimes its true, and so a little funny
Christopher: it would be funny if said by a poet
10:07 AM caustic when spoken by a scientist
me: a bit harsh to compartmentalize a man so...
Christopher: Did Dirac write poetry? Perhaps I jumped the gun?
me: perhaps, how are we to know.
10:08 AM being a scientist does not strip one of his humanity
Christopher: After being asked about his thoughts on Dirac's religious views, Wolfgang Pauli remarked, "If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet," a reference to the Islamic profession of faith.
Admittedly, I called him a "jerk" to rile you up.
me: another joke from another scientist.
Christopher: I was going for impact.
10:09 AM me: yea but IM doesn't quite convey tone well.
Christopher: but, I had less regard for Dirac (our local beloved Quantum Mechanist) after reading about his views
me: i know, same thing i was reading.
10:10 AM Christopher: so why is everyone interested in old physicists today?
me: it is a pretty cool picture.
I printed it for fun.
a reminder of the humanity of the sciences
Christopher: that's a good thing to remember
10:11 AM and I do like the picture too
very much
me: we get so used to seeing all their names as they relate to laws and theories.
10:12 AM and so we do forget that they all probably read poetry as well
obsessive, focused to a fault, unrelenting even
Christopher: I should like to know what poetry they read
10:13 AM hopefully not something morbid like Poe
me: traits not uncommon to find in people who accomplished the sort of work they all did.
Christopher: So is the knowledge gained worth the sacrifice of a man's life?
10:14 AM me: one trend seems common for a lot of them though.
they discovered something big, and then later in life went
"off the mainstream"
"off the mainstream"
in search of what, one might ask
10:15 AM i.e. Einstein's "creation" constant
Christopher: an excuse
me: for what?
Christopher: isn't that what the creation constant is about?
10:16 AM me: actually, it had spin sort of like the "intelligent design" trend.
Christopher: perhaps I should say "an explanation that fit their existing worldview"
of course, I am really speaking out of turn
I know next to nothing about the personal beliefs of those men
10:17 AM a little about Dirac and a little about Einstein
me: I think less evidence for worldviews and more an overwhelming drive for explanation.
Christopher: Then why was Einstein so resistant to QM?
10:18 AM if it was merely a drive for explanation?
he had notions he was unwilling to give up
(it seems)
me: because it seems like a step back.
Christopher: exactly
me: in a way QM is the admission that we can't know.
as I said a need for explanation.
10:19 AM Christopher: his worldview though demanded a certain type of explanation
me: and a firm belief in an orderly universe.
Christopher: QM was not compatible with what he was looking for
10:20 AM and Atlas shrugged
(I'm not reffering to Anne Rand)
10:21 AM refering "P
:P
me: yes, in a sense. i think he felt it was a rebellion of sorts against then idea of an orderly universe.
10:22 AM Christopher: I prefer an elegant universe, over an orderly one.
me: most physicists do.
10:23 AM Christopher: really? I thought that was a point of contention
me: another quote from Dirac.
"Physical laws should have mathematical beauty and simplicity."
Christopher: something the string theorists pushed
10:24 AM me: yes, it is a controversy of sorts, but people strive for simplicity.
Ockham's Razor, or however it's spelled
The search for quarks is a great example of the drive for simplicity.
Christopher: simplicity, elegance, order, and beauty
10:25 AM are they four different things?
me: Up, Down
Christopher: more like three
me: Strange, this some seems out of place.
Wouldn't it be Charming if there was a fourth.
Christopher: btw, that's poetry
me: And by the time they hit the Top
10:26 AM Christopher: and not pure science
me: the since of order was complete.
So they went ahead and theorized the Bottom.
Christopher: QM is, to me, a more poetical science
10:27 AM me: Science at its core it driven by the desire of the human heart for simplicity, order, and explanation.
That is my quote.
Christopher: I'm not sure that I agree with it.
10:28 AM Science is driven by...
the desire for knowledge/power/control
me: If poetry is an outpouring of the heart, then you might even say that science is driven by poetry.
Christopher: simplicity can be found in a hut, by a garden
me: i disagree.
power and control only comes from the a particular usage of science.
Christopher: then I think you have redefined Science
10:29 AM what "drives" science
me: the physicist vs. the engineer.
Christopher: physicists are not all of science
me: the engineer applies knowledge for good or bad.
Christopher: though probably the most "noble"
me: the physicist often seeks only the explanation.
10:30 AM Christopher: ok, I need to return to work
The opinions expressed in this chat do necessarily reflect those of Google, Christopher, or Christopher's PC.
me: a final quote from Einstein
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.[30]
10:31 AM Christopher: and as such I might make many of the same criticisms about Religion that I do about Science
peace
10:32 AM me: true.
see ya.
------------------------------------------------
By the way, Chris and I have often had conversations I wish I could have written down. It is the type of conversation that though I'm participating I feel I'm watching from it the outside. Kind of like watching two ideas face-off, rather than two people. And for me, the best ones always end with a consensus of truth.
10 comments:
Does Christopher know you are publicly displaying your chat logs?
From now on, I'm going to have to preface every statement made in chat with you with a legal disclaimer...
;)
Actually, it was Chris' suggestion I post it.
The recommended detox after viewing this transcript is to read Voltaire's Candide.
Dang, that was a lot of crap (good and bad crap, see the entry for compost in Wiki). I'd hate to see the horse's stall after that get together.
Disclaimer: The word CRAP was used for pure emphasis. It does not exactly reflect human or animal waste.
Dude!! I need to go to bed!
I don't feel smart enough to be friends with you two...my brain is muddled with diapering thoughts and Hypnobirthing!
Whoa. That's all I have to say.
its good to see that some things endure
keep it up you two
nothing but love
Brent
I guess this arguement works much the same as my arguement you can never trust a historian, journalist or archivist over a period humorist, because a society will only find funny things they can relate to. Therefore if humor has survived and celebrated in a given period it must have some basis as fact, whereas a historian, journalist or archivist will only document what they percieve to have current impact on events which have now passed and possibly forgotten. Actually, that has nothing to do with that conversation, which I guess in some way makes this very humorous (especially if you read all of this, to quote a comment above, "crap").
I swear I thought you two would mellow with age. You have gotten more full of it than I thought was ever possible. Sandy's comment would have been awesome if it weren't for the crap disclaimer. When Rebecca and Bull get sick of you I propose an exchange program where Sam and the kids go down and you two little pansies come up. I figure 2 weeks, 23 wrestling matches, 58 gooses, 17 wedgies, and 55 hours of ministry in Louisville's ghetto should work most of it out.
Strick get on facebook, so i don't have to wade through all of your trains of thought. go with the crowd....everyone else is doing it...it will make you coooler...
Post a Comment