Notes:
- Is coffee beautiful beacause 1. it is a concoction? 2. Its aroma? 3. Its possible varieties?
- Can beuaty exist without sensation? (e.g. are the deaf, mute, blind able to perceive beauty?)
- What are the features required for it to be beautiful
- Schwitter, Taylor Mali
-Preservation/permanence: Coffee-art, sand-art. Is it that something which not permanent evokes our appreciation?
- Is nature beautiful? Why?
- Must this beauty be interpreted or deciphered by man?
- Does beauty reside in Nature?
- Technology and Art are creations of man's abstract thinking (->our ability to comprehend the scale of our universe)
- Is the concept of abstract Nature's design?
- Hasn't nature been doing that al this while (solving design problems)?
- We are a product of Nature's evolutionary design (Nature's technology)
- Is there something more concrete to gain from this options other than marvelling?
- What we've learnt -- is it applicable to history, physics and other disciplines?
- Is sitting back and enjoying worthwhile or is it just a waste of time?

Conclusion?

Beauty resides in...both the mind and the object.

The object provides the "content", the mind then analyses, evaluates and finally appreciates it (beauty).

Without the mind, given a very "potentially beautiful" object, there is still no beauty in it, for there is no source of appreciation of its value. Conversely, if there is no object, then there is nothing to speak of in the first place.

Beauty is probably a kind of value accorded or attached to the object. This "value" has the qualities inherent in the object as a foundation for construction, and is shaped at the same time by the person, his experiences, knowledge, personal insights and realisation.

In this sense beauty is both objective (in the object's "potential") and subjective?

I personally think that it is impossible (or unwise) to construct a rule or standard set of criterion for beauty. Beauty is simply not just black-and-white, it contains many grey areas and ought not to be evaluated (maybe limited) by a rigid set of rules. And dichotomous keys and rules sometimes assume false dilemmas.

What exactly make up the inherent "beauty potential" in the object? There are 2 main levels: Physical and Abstract.

Physical is where we talk about the physical properties of the object and their impact on our sensory perceptions, particularly in the visual aspect. We then bring in the more technical concepts of colour, shape, form, symmetry and others (and the link to Mathematical concepts such as the Fibonnacci series and golden ratio).

Abstract is then the category of qualites of the object which we cannot directly perceive via sensations (sensory perceptions). These qualities are mainly related to the non-physical nature of the object, for instance, its creation (includes medium), function, level of permanence etc.

The mind comes in when we have to process these pieces of information. Through understanding, comprehending, recognising, tapping on our previously-gained knowledge, we can construct links, apply, evaluate and gain new ideas and insights. The ability to embrace the qualites of the object, process them and make them a part of our own (thinking), is the ability to appreciate its beauty.

Hence, the blind can appreciate sand-art and coffee-art: by understanding the nature of these forms of art, they can relate it to the concept of how something so emphemeral can form patterns and shapes. Along with the individual's experiences (e.g: a memory of something's short-lived nature accentuating its beauty), he can then determine whether it is beautiful, or not. For another individual, permanence might be the preferred option, and he might not see beauty in "coffee-art" or "sand-art" stemming from the medium.

---------------------------------------------------------------

This conclusion is probably flawed in many areas when we dissect it; it is also likely that there are some instances of "beauty" which do not fit into this "process". However, I think that this will do for now.

The definition of beauty (if there is one) and how we perceive beauty is subjected to more changes as we carry on in life and gain more exposure to different things.

Therefore, in a certain sense, this is not even a "conclusion". Perhaps, there might be none at all!

Controversies and areas of divergence make things interesting and exciting.

The fun lies in how mysterious and ambiguous the whole issue of beauty is and how we inquisitively and instinctively try to grapple with it.

And most importantly, the fun never ends :)

26 October: The Philosphy Perspective

Random: Temporary Graffiti! (Edited from http://double-glazing-windows-uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/misted-glass-225x3001.jpg)

What is Art and what is not
- Controversial works of art (e.g. Dadaism, or those witholding negative connotations with regards to religion)?

3 statements we were supposed to come up with using the terms we listed on the board during class discussion:

1. In Art, artists express themselves through playing with concepts such as scale, shape, colours, symmetry, order, patterns and chaos.

2. Our perceptions and definitions of what is beautiful and meaningful can be shaped by our lifestyles and beliefs, such as those relating to religion.

3. Our differing perspectives and definitions of what art and beauty is has aroused much controversy over the subject of art appreciation.

My favourite statement from a classmate: "Subjectivity causes controversy."

--------------------------------------

Some terms: Art, Authenticity, Forgery, Copy, Original, Simulacra, Simulacrum
People: Walter Benjamin (The work of Art in an age of mechanical reprduction), Andy Warhol (pop art, Marilyn Monroe)

Our Group's conclusion after researching on Andy Warhol and on the related concepts:

Simulacra does not equate to forgery or the lack of authenticity.
A simulacrum is not a form of forgery, nor does it lack authenticity.

Warhol’s works are based on the concept of simulacrum! He is interested in the simulacrum, the copy and the second-generation image. (He values this concept of mechanically reproducing his images)

Implies: Simulacra can contain some element of authenticity. Forgery does not contain authenticity.

DEFINITIONS:

Authenticity: Made in the original way; real, genuine, original. Authenticity in the ideas behind his works.

- Andy Warhol’s works contain some element of authenticity and originality.
- The level of authenticity has a direct effect on the supposed “value” of the work.
- A simulacra is hence more valuable than a forged copy of an artwork.

Forgery: The act of making a copy of something. Has a negative connotation. Forgery and authenticity are mutually exclusive.

Food for Thought:

- Did we notice any parallels between our research + group presentation and the acutal issue of concern (about Andy Warhol, authenticity, simulacra etc)?
- Our usage of technology in tha alchemy (magic?) lab to access information on the topic parallels the rise of capitalism
- Resources are also so readily available with technology. Just google "Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe" and his artwork will appear on the screen within milliseconds. Furthermore, this action can be simultaneously done on million of computers all over the world at the same time. How do we think Andy Warhol would react? >:/
- What is the value of exclusiveness in a digital age like ours?
- What is the relationship between exclusiveness and authenticity?
- So exactly what pathway are we on?
- And last of all, what does this imply for our perception of beauty?

• Notes:
• Beauty of Mathematics: Finding order in complexity (parallels chaos theory?)
• Using simple intuitive methods to solve difficult problems
• Finding the "unchanged" in "changed"
• PHP: If kn+1 pigeons are put into n holes, then one hole must contain at least k+1 pigeons.
  
  
  
  

The Sierpinski's triange we constructed in class! It looks so pretty but it comes from a simple rule: Join the midpoints of the triangle and then shade the new triangle formed.

"The pattern obtained by coloring only the odd numbers in Pascal's triangle closely resembles the fractal called Sierpinski triangle, and this resemblance becomes more and more accurate as more rows are considered; in the limit, as the number of rows approaches infinity, the resulting pattern is the Sierpinski triangle, assuming a fixed perimeter. "~ Wikipedia

Koch Snowflake! Rule: Divide a line segment into 3, extend a equilatral triangle with the middle line as a base, then erase the middle line.
Animation of the construction of Koch Snowflake (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Von_Koch_curve.gif)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of repeating the same rule again and again to achieve a complex and beautiful structure exemplifies itself in many aspects of nature too.

Newborn hamsters


Notes:

• Biodiversity vs Variation classification (e.g. Phylogenetic Trees)
• Grouping based on internal features e.g. bilateral symmetry, radial symmetry, triploblastic
• Earthworms the first organisms to have all the features human beings have
• Mollusca --> Secrete minerals outside the organism
• Starfish--> Starfish the only organism that does not follow the trend; it has pentagonal symmetry (same distance from the mouth)
• Similar body plans <--> observation of zygotes and how they divide into bigger masses
• As they divide along different lines of symmetry, they form different shapes and patterns, which in turn determine the organisms' inner and outer layers.
• Embryo resemblances (esp at the initial stages)
• No matter how different we appear to bem we are still similar!
• How similar we are is dependent on rate of DNA hybridization (>no. of matches --> >similar)
• Earliest whales lived on land and had limbs. Till today, some aspects of their behaviour still reflect this: Whales' movement is up-down (resembling that of mammals running on land) unlike fishes whose movement is generally characterised by left-right swishing.
• Similar skeletal organization/patterns of internal structure
• Mathematical perspective:
• E.g. Pascal's Triangle, Fibonnacci series, golden ratio
• Angles, shape configurations based on certain principles: 1. Economical (minimum wastage of materials), 2. Efficiency (less work) 3. Adaptability --> Logic in biological design
• The human perception
• Limits of human perception: inability to predict values and ideas like volume, colour hue etc

The mother hamster (which belongs to my sis) with her baby hamster

Notes:

• Symmetry from the Physics perspective: Enthropy (ordered --> disordered)
• Example of system which changes disorder to order: LIFE (Metabolism, respiration, photosynthesis)
• DEATH on the other hand disintegrates. Organisms become new building blocks of another life.
• Life is a system (Self-contained) that reorganizes itself.
• Humans invent to resist change
• Living organisms have some kind of order, described as "symmetry".

• How close must the 2 images be for it to be called "symmetrical"?
• 2 definitions of "symmetry": Precise and imprecise.
• Is it inherent in our nature to recognize patterns? Do we seek patterns instinctively?

• The Physics Perspective: Looking for invariant + unchanging laws that truly and absolutely describes all phenomena in the universe (constants like pii, mol, e)
• Newton's laws do not display complete physical symmetry
• Universe: 1. Relativity 2. Newtonian physics 3. Quantum mechanics
• Scientists try to pursue the "Grand Unified Theory", a way of reconciling the various theories which are not compatible.
• Superstrings

jon-han.com/work/dimensionsm.jpg

Superstring Theory, one of the recent proposals of modern physics, in short suggests that in a world with three ordinary dimensions and some additional very "small" dimensions, particles are strings and membranes. (wikipedia, http://www.particleadventure.org)
------------------------------------------------------

Michio Kaku the Physicist and Popularizer of Science

(image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku)

Michio Kaku (the guy in the video who introduced to us the Superstring theory by relating it to his favourite hobby, ice-skating) is a theoretical physicist specializing in the String Theory. In addition, he is a popularizer of Science.

Popular Science is an interpretation science intended for the general public as the audience. As compared to Science Journalism, popular science is probably more broad-ranging and finds itself being presented in many different formats (e.g. documentaries) other than in academic journals. The goal of popular science is to capture the content and methods as accurately as possible while making the language more accessible and understandable for the layman.

More from wikipedia: "Popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports and derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveal at least some level of distortion and oversimplification which can often be quite dramatic.

Some features of popular science productions include entertainment value or personal relevance to the audience, generalized and simplified science concepts, use of metaphors and analogies to explain difficult and/or abstract scientific concepts and very limited mathematical formulas or complicating details. As it is presented for an audience with little or no science background, it explains general concepts more thoroughly."

In my opinion, it is probably kind of difficult for specialists or scientists to be popularizers of science at the same time, as the gap between expert knowledge and expressing it in layman language might be a little too wide to bridge. However, scientists-cum-popularizers of science such as Michio Kaku have successfully done it and they're really worth our admiration. (By the way Michael Faraday our favourite Sec 4 electromagnetism physicist is a popularizer of science too.)

I believe that knowledge has more value when it is shared with people. Not just like-minded people or people of this same academic/intellectual status as you, but ordinary people who are generally unable to access them.

As an extension of the previous thought, many elite groups/organizations risk lapsing into the danger of being too isolated from the 'outside world' or 'general population'. Being passionate about and engrossed in one's discipline is a commendable thing, but when it comes to a stage where you lose the connection or communication with those not within the group...I think it becomes a pity.

Perhaps some would remember people like Michio Kaku for his great contributions to the development of the string theory, but for ordinary people like me, I probably won't remember the details of the theory -- what I'll remember is the simple and clear-cut manner by which he explained it to us, the metaphors he used and most imporantly the satisfying moment of realization and understanding that he has given us ordinary people, something we would not have been able to experience otherwise from the words of another scientist.

Most people can learn, but few people can teach. Everyone can do differentiation, but not everyone can come up with an effective metaphor.

Quoting Albert Einstein, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.”

The Large Hadron Collider: CMS detector. Steered proton beams will collide in the middle of the CMS and the three other detectors. Credit: Guido Mocafico
(Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/why_a_large_hadron_collider/)

What are some entities smaller than us?

------------------------------------------

The Standard Model (http://www.particleadventure.org):
Physicists have developed a theory called The Standard Model that explains what the world is and what holds it together. It is a simple and comprehensive theory that explains all the hundreds of particles and complex interactions with only: 6 quarks, 6 leption s (with the best-known being the electron) and force carrier particles , like the photon

All the known matter particles are composites of quarks and leptons, and they interact by exchanging force carrier particles.

The Standard Model is a good theory. Experiments have verified its predictions to incredible precision, and all the particles predicted by this theory have been found. But it does not explain everything. For example, gravity is not included in the Standard Model.

BUT...

While the Standard Model provides a very good description of phenomena observed by experiments, it is still an incomplete theory. The problem is that the Standard Model cannot explain why some particles exist as they do. For example, even though physicists knew the masses of all the quarks except for top quark for many years, they were simply unable to accurately predict the top quark's mass without experimental evidence because the Standard Model lacks any explanation for a possible pattern for particle masses.

This does not mean that the Standard Model is wrong -- but we need to go beyond the Standard Model in the same way that Einstein's Theory of Relativity extended Newton's laws of mechanics. Isaac Newton's laws of mechanics are not wrong, per se, but his theory only works as long as velocity is much smaller than the speed of light. Einstein expanded Newtonian physics with his Theory of Relativity, which allows for the possibility of very high velocities. We will need to extend the Standard Model with something totally new in order to thoroughly explain mass, gravity and other phenomena.

--------------------------------------------

My thoughts:

View of the ATLAS detector in the experiment hall, roughly 100 meters underground. ATLAS is one of the five particle physics experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. Credit: Guido Mocafico.
(Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/why_a_large_hadron_collider/)