Is Art Antonym for Science? - SCI-ART LAB2024-03-28T22:37:44Zhttps://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/is-art-antonym-for-science?commentId=2816864%3AComment%3A102503&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAgain quantum mechanics! Talk…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-06-16:2816864:Comment:1026772013-06-16T04:24:38.961ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Again quantum mechanics! Talk about the real world as we perceive, Chris!</p>
<p>Please read the article I wrote on this here: <a href="http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-of-truth-and-reality-from-a-scientist-s-point-of-v" target="_blank">http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-of-truth-and-reality-from-a-scientist-s-point-of-v</a></p>
<p><span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="inline_editor_value">In the ambit of the so-called…</span></span></p>
<p>Again quantum mechanics! Talk about the real world as we perceive, Chris!</p>
<p>Please read the article I wrote on this here: <a href="http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-of-truth-and-reality-from-a-scientist-s-point-of-v" target="_blank">http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-of-truth-and-reality-from-a-scientist-s-point-of-v</a></p>
<p><span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="inline_editor_value">In the ambit of the so-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-measurements_interpretation" title="Hidden-measurements interpretation">hidden-measurements interpretation</a> of quantum mechanics, the observer-effect can be understood as an <i>instrument effect</i> which results from the combination of the following two aspects: (a) an invasiveness of the measurement process, intrinsically incorporated in its experimental protocol (which therefore cannot be eliminated); (b) the presence of a random mechanism (due to fluctuations in the experimental context) through which a specific measurement-interaction is each time actualized, in a non-predictable (non-controllable) way.</span></span></p>
<p><span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="inline_editor_value">****The observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, <i>the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology</i>. It must be emphasized that <i>measurement</i> does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.</span></span></p>
<p><strong>That "people change things by taking measurements in a lab", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe" is not correct even in the quantum world. It is actually the particle exchange that changes reality. Not our observations. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial. In the classical world changing the results by our observations is completely out of question! Get this right first.</strong></p> I am afraid You are more both…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-06-16:2816864:Comment:1027732013-06-16T04:21:33.264ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>I am afraid You are more bothered about quantum mechanics than the real world, Christophor. And I deal with the real world as I perceive with my senses. So our opinions differ from each others'!</p>
<p>Flawlessly accounting for the behavior of matter on scales from the subatomic to the astronomical, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in all the physical sciences. It is also the weirdest.</p>
<p>In the quantum realm, particles seem to be in two places at once, information appears…</p>
<p>I am afraid You are more bothered about quantum mechanics than the real world, Christophor. And I deal with the real world as I perceive with my senses. So our opinions differ from each others'!</p>
<p>Flawlessly accounting for the behavior of matter on scales from the subatomic to the astronomical, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in all the physical sciences. It is also the weirdest.</p>
<p>In the quantum realm, particles seem to be in two places at once, information appears to travel faster than the speed of light, and cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Physicists have grappled with the quantum world's apparent paradoxes for nine decades, with little to show for their struggles. Unlike evolution and cosmology, whose truths have been incorporated into the general intellectual landscape, quantum theory is still considered (even by many physicists) to be a bizarre anomaly, a powerful recipe book for building gadgets but good for little else. The deep confusion about the meaning of quantum theory will continue to add fuel to the perception that the deep things it is so urgently trying to tell us about our world are irrelevant to everyday life and too weird to matter.</p>
<p><span class="inline_editor_value">That "people change things by taking measurements", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe". It is actually the <i>particle exchange that changes reality</i>. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial.</span></p> You are talking and arguing a…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-06-16:2816864:Comment:1025032013-06-16T04:15:04.818ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>You are talking and arguing about quantum mechanics Christopher. Yes, there are other realities but the reality of quantum world cannot govern the classical world and I am talking about classical world we deal with daily and not quantum world. How can you bring the arguments of quantum world to the classical world? That sounds silly to me.</p>
<div class="moduleHolder"><p class="in-article-image"> <span class="inline_editor_value">The points I have made deals strictly with macroscopic…</span></p>
</div>
<p>You are talking and arguing about quantum mechanics Christopher. Yes, there are other realities but the reality of quantum world cannot govern the classical world and I am talking about classical world we deal with daily and not quantum world. How can you bring the arguments of quantum world to the classical world? That sounds silly to me.</p>
<div class="moduleHolder"><p class="in-article-image"> <span class="inline_editor_value">The points I have made deals strictly with macroscopic (large, everyday, massive) objects that do not display quantum behavior. You might not personally know which way up the coin landed until you go look when you throw it into a well. But the coin would obey classical mechanics. In principle, if you took all the details about the depth of the well and the precise way you dropped the coin into account, you could calculate the coin's exact trajectory and deduce which side landed facing up. <br/><br/>In the case of Schroedinger's cat, the true quantum behavior is exhibited by the single radioactive atom that is in a superposition of "decayed" and "un-decayed" states. A single atom is truly a quantum system, so that is fine. One must stretch the imagination to believe that the decay of one atom could immediately kill the cat ... But that is a bit of poetic license within the thought experiment, in order to get one thinking about how the quantum world defies everyday expectations.</span><br/><br/></p>
</div>
<p>Flawlessly accounting for the behavior of matter on scales from the subatomic to the astronomical, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in all the physical sciences. It is also the weirdest.</p>
<p>In the quantum realm, particles seem to be in two places at once, information appears to travel faster than the speed of light, and cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Physicists have grappled with the quantum world's apparent paradoxes for nine decades, with little to show for their struggles. Unlike evolution and cosmology, whose truths have been incorporated into the general intellectual landscape, quantum theory is still considered (even by many physicists) to be a bizarre anomaly, a powerful recipe book for building gadgets but good for little else in the real or classical world. The deep confusion about the meaning of quantum theory will continue to add fuel to the perception that the deep things it is so urgently trying to tell us about our world are irrelevant to everyday life and too weird to matter.</p>
<p><strong><span class="inline_editor_value">That "people change things by taking measurements", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe". It is actually the <i>particle exchange that changes reality</i>. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="inline_editor_value">Please read my article based on this here:</span></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="inline_editor_value"><a href="http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-of-truth-and-reality-from-a-scientist-s-point-of-v" target="_blank">http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-of-truth-and-reality-from-a-scientist-s-point-of-v</a></span></strong></p>
<p></p> Agreed, all parts of the brai…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-06-16:2816864:Comment:1027722013-06-16T04:12:33.429ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Agreed, all parts of the brain works during processing of thoughts but how they work, which part more and which less makes a person who he is!</p>
<p>Agreed, all parts of the brain works during processing of thoughts but how they work, which part more and which less makes a person who he is!</p> Thank you, Ms. Childs. It too…tag:kkartlab.in,2012-03-18:2816864:Comment:834802012-03-18T04:07:51.079ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Thank you, Ms. Childs. It took me this long to watch the video and go through the stories and discussion. Sorry for the delay in giving you a reply.</p>
<p>Anish Kapoor's work was like what we see in old rugged railway stations everywhere in India. But when we hear him, we find different meanings in the stuff. But somehow I feel it is a bit hollow.</p>
<p>I liked the story of the animals. Yes, different people attribute different meanings to art. Art is of two types - thinking art and…</p>
<p>Thank you, Ms. Childs. It took me this long to watch the video and go through the stories and discussion. Sorry for the delay in giving you a reply.</p>
<p>Anish Kapoor's work was like what we see in old rugged railway stations everywhere in India. But when we hear him, we find different meanings in the stuff. But somehow I feel it is a bit hollow.</p>
<p>I liked the story of the animals. Yes, different people attribute different meanings to art. Art is of two types - thinking art and non-thinking art! I have seen several people just copying others' work and also from Nature like flowers etc. You need not think much when you do such "art - or artifacts"! For me thinking art is the real art. But only a minority of people really "think" before creating art. Because, you observe, think, imagine different pictures with different meanings in your mind and then really " create" art. Yes, some artists are really intelligent and genuine and some are just smart - they create interesting designs with words and pictures and try to mesmerize people. </p>
<p>Regarding art and science I am writing a blog - still has to add some stuff to it - differences between art and science - people think they are similar, but there are a few differences- I am trying to sort them out- a bit difficult because I am a whole brain person and it is really difficult for me to differentiate between things that interplay with one another in my mind but I accepted the challenge. I still have to get clarity but added it anyway. You can read it here: <a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/differences-between-art-and-science" target="_blank">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/differences-between-art-and-science</a></p> What was the question again?…tag:kkartlab.in,2012-03-13:2816864:Comment:833012012-03-13T16:31:41.391ZZiska Childshttps://kkartlab.in/profile/ZiskaChilds
<p>What was the question again?</p>
<p></p>
<p>No, I don't see them as antonyms; but that is because of my study of the history of Western Science and Art. Does that deeper probing make me a Scientist? Highly doubtful. It just means I have a curiosity about certain things which leads me to research them further. That is part of my character. Is that an Artist's character? Yes (9 generations of it). In order to be a practicing Artist/Designer you need to be observant (all senses) and tenacious-…</p>
<p>What was the question again?</p>
<p></p>
<p>No, I don't see them as antonyms; but that is because of my study of the history of Western Science and Art. Does that deeper probing make me a Scientist? Highly doubtful. It just means I have a curiosity about certain things which leads me to research them further. That is part of my character. Is that an Artist's character? Yes (9 generations of it). In order to be a practicing Artist/Designer you need to be observant (all senses) and tenacious- passion is not enough. Is that in a Scientist's character? You tell me.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, you say- fine for origins but what about today? Here is what I do know- Art- the best kind- the lasting kind- is layered and holds to universal truths. It speaks to people of many backgrounds (Universality). The more you know about the subject of the Art the more you will get out of the Art (Layers of meaning). This has become especially true with 20th century Art (The Painted Word, Tom Wolfe). Research today's Artists and you will find observant, tenacious, passionate practitioners.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Listen, if you wish, to Anish Kapoor's description of "Memory"</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/past/exhibit/3317" target="_blank">http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/past/exhibit/3317</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The character and the process remains consistent- but the goals - are the goals different? IMO this is probably the key difference. In Art we seek the "audience" to have individual answers and experiences and connect with themselves and others from a new perspective. We seek to reveal the human experience and (sometimes) manipulate it. In Science (outsider's observation) you are looking for Answers through measurable phenomenon.</p>
<p></p>
<p>One of my favorite stories:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mtwain.com/A_Fable/0.html" target="_blank">http://www.mtwain.com/A_Fable/0.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>For your amusement:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ted.com/conversations/163/what_is_the_difference_between.html" target="_blank">http://www.ted.com/conversations/163/what_is_the_difference_between.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>and something I learned many many years ago:</p>
<p>If we shadows have offended, think but this; and all is mended that you have but slumbered here while these visions did appear and this weak and idle theme no more yielding but a dream. Gentles--do not reprehend if you pardon, we will mend. And, as I am an honest Puck if we have unearned luck. Now to scape the serpents tongue. We will make amends ere long else the Puck a liar call. So--goodnight unto you all. Give me your hands if we be friends. And Robin shall restore amends.</p> I disagree with you when you…tag:kkartlab.in,2011-08-01:2816864:Comment:716492011-08-01T03:19:19.598ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<dl class="discussion clear i0 xg_lightborder">
<dd><div class="description" id="desc_2341979Comment47951"><p>I disagree with you when you say to understand Nature you need a different out look than that of the one scientists have. Can only artists ( with their way of seeing Nature differently) understand and enjoy Nature in a better way? I beg to differ. I wrote an article on this and posted on my network Art Lab. It is titled " Is art antonym for science". <strong>An artist or an ordinary…</strong></p>
</div>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl class="discussion clear i0 xg_lightborder">
<dd><div class="description" id="desc_2341979Comment47951"><p>I disagree with you when you say to understand Nature you need a different out look than that of the one scientists have. Can only artists ( with their way of seeing Nature differently) understand and enjoy Nature in a better way? I beg to differ. I wrote an article on this and posted on my network Art Lab. It is titled " Is art antonym for science". <strong>An artist or an ordinary person can see a leaf only superficially. A scientist can see it at the atomic level and can still marvel at the miracles of Nature.</strong> That is seeing more than others can do and still enjoying it. An artist can see the moon as a silver ball hanging in the sky and enjoy it. <strong>A scientist can go further and think in terms of space, time, gravity and can still have a wonderful feeling when all these are followed by planets and their satellites in a beautiful rhythum of Nature!</strong> I am a scientist, an artist, a writer, a poet, a designer and I don't think a scientist needs a different outlook to enjoy nature. You can enjoy Nature with the view of a scientist too and it is as beautiful as the ones others have and in a way more wholesome! Because you can see the whole picture not a partial one like the others do!</p>
You said: "Science today is moving in a destructive direction, that is towards generation of more randomness rather than stability"<br/>
<p>Science itself is not bad. The way you use it can be good or bad. The benefits of Science and technology are like knives. You can use them for cutting fruits and vegetables and also to spill blood. It is up to you which way you want to go. The choice is yours ( I painted a picture based on this very theme). It has become fashionable to criticize Science and technology for all the evils we face in today's world.. Science is looking bad because we don't know how to use it in a proper way! It is like a bad worker complaining about his tools!</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Mrs Munmun S Deshpande said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.paryavaran.com/forum/topic/show?id=2341979%3ATopic%3A47147&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic#2341979Comment47446"><div>Very well said maam, this is what i wanted to reflect, that Scientists often boast of knowing the maximum but to understand Nature we require different outlook, that of an artist, of a philosopher, of just a careful observer. Science today is moving in a destructive direction, that is towards generation of more randomness rather than stability. We are just digging the soil, pumping water, using technology to check what phenomenon is responsible. But we fail to see the way nature in adjusting to the randomness. I will give u a small example. We often find ants bringing mud inside our house to build nest at door- corners. It is really very annoying site to see that dug mud springing on the clean floor. Now take the case of the development of science...If the earth is a clean floor and the technocrat humans are the ants..then i think we should also be treated by nature the same way we treat the ants (tortured till dead) How far the scientific community is right is still a question. I apologize for being a bit critical over the scientific community but being in the same profession, i am myself seeking the truth </div>
<div><strong>( My reply elsewhere but still relevant to this topic - Krishna)</strong></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</dd>
</dl> Dear Krishna,
your "Ghost in…tag:kkartlab.in,2011-05-18:2816864:Comment:684542011-05-18T14:20:24.309Zgiulia occorsiohttps://kkartlab.in/profile/giuliaoccorsio
<p>Dear Krishna,</p>
<p>your "Ghost in the head" is very convincing and I think to you as a women of clair science and an artist simply and effective. Superstition catch many people, but, as you said: it need to respect all points to see also!</p>
<p>Best regards...</p>
<p>Dear Krishna,</p>
<p>your "Ghost in the head" is very convincing and I think to you as a women of clair science and an artist simply and effective. Superstition catch many people, but, as you said: it need to respect all points to see also!</p>
<p>Best regards...</p> I found a wonderful comment o…tag:kkartlab.in,2011-05-18:2816864:Comment:680872011-05-18T03:09:51.586ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>I found a wonderful comment on pseudo-science in Scientific American. Here it is for all of you to read and ponder:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=space-is-an-elaborate-illusion-2011-05-16&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110517" target="_blank">http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=space-is-an-elab...</a><br></br> <br></br><br></br>The reason theoretical physics and the science of quantum mechanics are heading in the pseudoscience direction is because humanity's…</p>
<p>I found a wonderful comment on pseudo-science in Scientific American. Here it is for all of you to read and ponder:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=space-is-an-elaborate-illusion-2011-05-16&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110517" target="_blank">http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=space-is-an-elab...</a><br/> <br/><br/>The reason theoretical physics and the science of quantum mechanics are heading in the pseudoscience direction is because humanity's current standard scientific practices cannot yet explain the biggest questions out there. We know that when the observer (scientist) witnesses an elementary particle that the act of observation itself 'changes' (for lack of a better term) the particle. What this tells us is that all matter (as we know it) is fickle at best, hence the holographic principle.<br/><br/>It may be possible that we will never find the edge of the universe or the smallest element that we and all matter is made of because the act of observing with intent therefore creates reality. The fact of the matter is, that matter is not the substance of the universe, it is consciousness. <br/><br/>We live in a hologram and the reality we experience is a constant creation of consciousness and we humans are biological computers and consciousness conductors. <br/><br/>How's that for pseudoscience :-)</p>
<p><span class="inline_editor_value">That "people change things by taking measurements", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe". It is actually the <i>particle exchange that changes reality</i>. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial.</span></p>
I can understand, Giulia. E…tag:kkartlab.in,2011-05-18:2816864:Comment:685492011-05-18T01:04:00.966ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p> </p>
<p>I can understand, Giulia. Everybody gets attracted to interesting stories of falsehood but truth will be not so interesting. That is how falsehood gets spread in no time. Many people don't get attracted to bland truth! Moreover the fear of unknown always make people take refuge in baseless beliefs. I wrote a short story on this very topic titled "How superstition wins over Science". One of my close friends here is a victim of this superstition and I watched it with my own eyes how…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I can understand, Giulia. Everybody gets attracted to interesting stories of falsehood but truth will be not so interesting. That is how falsehood gets spread in no time. Many people don't get attracted to bland truth! Moreover the fear of unknown always make people take refuge in baseless beliefs. I wrote a short story on this very topic titled "How superstition wins over Science". One of my close friends here is a victim of this superstition and I watched it with my own eyes how she suffered because of the spread of false stories about her house. This story is about her real story. It has been my endeavour to make ordinary people understand the scientific way of thinking and see truth and not falsehood. I know that is how I get entangled in fights with people who spread falsehood but still we people continue our fight on falsehood. The tough still get going when the going gets tough! My only request is please try to consider the other view points too. Only rational thinking can sort out the problem. </p>
<p>I painted two pictures on this topic. You can see them here: </p>
<a href="http://www.kkartfromscience.com/popup/as28.html" target="_blank">http://www.kkartfromscience.com/popup/as28.html</a><br/>
<p><a href="http://www.kkartfromscience.com/popup/as29.html" target="_blank">http://www.kkartfromscience.com/popup/as29.html</a></p>
<p>As people like ghost stories and believe them, I took the help of ghosts to make my point clear although I don't believe in ghosts! <br/> Have a nice day</p>
<p>Krishna<br/> <cite>giulia occorsio said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/is-art-antonym-for-science?commentId=2816864%3AComment%3A68452&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2816864Comment68452"><div>I speak as an artist and no a scientist: the effect is equivalent Pauli, indeed, the scientist "non-interventionist" Pauli surreal to an artist that breaks through the reality little coded solutions ...</div>
</blockquote>