Why do we see symmetry everywhere in science and nature?

[jedishrfu]

As an aside, there is a well-known painting by Edvard Munch called The Scream where it has an eerie sunset in the background and the reason it was there:

https://skyandtelescope.org/press-releases/astronomical-sleuths-link-krakatoa-to-edvard-munchs-painting-the-scream/

Sometimes paintings capture real-life events.

 

[bhobba]

Isn't that a meaning?

That's an old one. It is well known Feynman was antiphilosophy, to the point of during philosophy class at MIT, spending his time drilling small holes in his shoes with a drill he had. The issue of course is thinking philosophy is useless is itself a philosophy - so you are caught. Feynman actually did have a philosophy if you listen to his public lectures like The Character Of Physical Law. In fact I think it better than what professional philosophers like Popper came up with - IMHO of course.

Life is just a cruel joke, nothing is important and we'd be better off if nothing ever existed

Yes that is a position some take. But as Feynman said - physics is not important - love is. He just loved math and physics - and creating 'stories' about himself as just a hick from Far Rockaway who has seen through city slicker ways - despite how much it annoyed the guy in the office next door - Gell-Mann. By posting here you must at least like science - so you are caught in the same trap as Feynman's antiphilosophy. Gell-Mann held a related but slightly different view:

Personally I am with Gell-Mann on this, sorry Richard.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Klystron]

Woah, that's so cool! I hear you man, I like how you gave them all a little story, helps me to see where you're coming from

What's up with the one you just posted? Is the brown thing supposed to be a wall separating order from chaos? What are those guys on the road doing?!? It's funny, it looks sort peaceful but also violent and stormy at the same time. I guess it's the whirly brush strokes and stuff.

i could totally get into this art thing, haha

You have a good eye for art as do many mathematicians. I chose that van Gogh for the swirling asymmetries and the two happy bro's sauntering out of the frame to mow hay. The thick layered painting style is called impasto, from the same root word as pasta.

Medical people like to diagnose artists from their work and in Vincent van Gogh's case they may be correct: the artist suffered from severe astigmatism and possibly cataracts aggravated by working en plein air, outdoors under bright sun. Vincent saw and painted waving grain fields almost like walls so thickly did he paint.

His astronomical bodies lack the pointy 'twinkling' stars common to astigmatism but his portraits indicate a hyper-dominant eye that might have distorted his depth perception. Hence the blocks of waving grain under the intense swirling atmosphere. Typical of fine art and even science, an original work may be answering or arguing with a contemporary point of view; such as impasto over pointillism.

Luckily Vincent's brother Theo owned art galleries and kept Vincent supplied with samples of the latest oil paints. Impasto requires lots of paint. Van Gogh was known for squirting entire tubes of expensive paints on his palette and arriving home smeared with colors.

 

[etotheipi]

Medical people like to diagnose artists from their work and in Vincent van Gogh's case they may be correct: the artist suffered from severe astigmatism and possibly cataracts aggravated by working en plein air, outdoors under bright sun. Vincent saw and painted waving grain fields almost like walls so thickly did he paint.

His astronomical bodies lack the pointy 'twinkling' stars common to astigmatism but his portraits indicate a hyper-dominant eye that might have distorted his depth perception.

It's pretty amazing that people can deduce that just from looking at the paintings. I read another article discussing something similar:

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-curious-subculture-diagnosing-dead-artists-work

which says that Monet also began developing cataracts, and that there was a marked difference between his paintings before his surgery and the more expressionistic and vibrant works after his surgery.

 

[bhobba]

It's pretty amazing that people can deduce that just from looking at the paintings.

I prefer to say - TRY to deduce it. Literature, art etc., majors do it all the time and debate what they think. I am not much good at it, at least my teachers thought so, so guess what - literature, art etc., is not my thing - even though I read voraciously. Another factor is that if you feel you are not any good at something, it tends not to appeal. Feynman didn't like art much, but he eventually made a deal with an artist to teach him art and teach him physics. Finally, he became a decent artist. I sometimes think we could be destroying a lot of talent because teachers categorise people and do not put effort into developing a hidden talent. I am not a fan of FORCING people to study things they do not like or want to, beyond what is necessary as general knowledge to function in our society. The line is debatable. To be generally educated, I think calculus is required. Others believe a foreign language is necessary, which I do not. That whole area makes for an exciting debate. I even think everyone who can get a degree before they leave school at 18 should be part of general free education - in the US; you now have some schools where you graduate with both an HS diploma and associate degree. We are developing similar schools here in Aus - the difference is a Diploma is equivalent to an associate degree.

Thanks
Bill

 

[paradisePhysicist]

In your own words, why do humans look for and prefer symmetries in mathematics, physics, philosophy and in general?

Do they? A lot of people like asymmetrical architecture and art. I think people want balance (a mix of symmetry and asymmetry.)

 

[bhobba]

Do they? A lot of people like asymmetrical architecture and art. I think people want balance (a mix of symmetry and asymmetry.)

It isn't that many prefer symmetries. I think Feynman's view on the matter is also common:

The idea is we see it so often, that when it is not true (and indeed sometimes it is not true) we find it, as Feynman would say, interesting.

As mentioned previously in the thread I am with Gell-Mann on this one. He thinks it is simply as we go from level to level eg - classical to quantum to QFT to we do not know at the moment - many things get preserved - but some do not. It is the origin of beauty in physics and the answer to Wigner's famous essay:
https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf

Thanks
Bill