![star-trek-spock1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fQ0MKys.jpg "star-trek-spock1[1].jpg")
How do you deal with cold logic /lit/? I love engineering because of the creativity and personal touch involved, but for me math and science seems too impersonal. It seems that it heavily relies on some brain functions that can be named IQ. That is no artistry involved and the leap of genius is something impersonal that could be done by someone else in another time. If it wasn't for literature i would be quite alienated and paranoid.
tss why's it so cold did it forget its jacket or somethin i dunno
You have to live with the conflict of both until you die.
>>7367229
I study electrical engineering and passed through similar things, anon.
Until I realized what makes math and physics "unartistry" is the student eyes.
I personally find beauty in eletromagnetism, specially when the fields variate with time. But this only because I tried to focus not in "how to solve problems and get a good grade" but in why the equations are that (deductions, proves and such).
If you study math, physics or chemistry only to understand the method of solving problems, you'll have a boring and repetitive study.
>>7367294
Holy nerd-dom.
>>7367294
You seem like a good lad
>>7367294
This, this and this
>>7367229
dude, go look at some of Antonio Gaudi's buildings and then tell me engineering can't be creative. i dare you.
There can be artistry and elegance in the way you use algorithms and what you create with them. When you understand things and they just click. It's pretty when everything lines up perfectly.
Programming is purely abstract though so yeah, the process of creation is very detached from humanity. Same for math and similar fields I'd assume.
>>7367229
>heavily relies on some brain functions that can be named IQ
>no artistry involved and the leap of genius
Real intelligence is subconscious leaps of genius in pattern recognition (As all IQ tests are). Taking cold methodical process is literally pleb tier thinking which should only compliment the artistic moments that make up the bulk of solutions.
>>7367229
>math
>no artistry involved
Are you joking? Do you think mathematicians just compute things until the solution to problems become apparent? Discoveries in new areas of maths take a lot of creativity.
Mathematics is art. For me it forms the holy trinity of the most sublime modes of expression, along with literature and music.
I am taken aback by the beauty in minds like Euler's and Maxwell's. Like >>7367294 said, studying deeply rather than widely helps to appreciate what makes mathematical thought so captivating.
>>7368663
>I am taken aback by the beauty in minds like Euler's and Maxwell's.
But mathematics isn't an expressions of their particular brains of self. Is something universal and complete detached from the ego. It's intention is not to express personality nor anything personal.
>>7368852
You could say the same of a mountain or a great lake.
It is our own ego witnessing and interacting with a form as eternal as spirit which gives rise to the feelings of wonder.
>>7368663
You're not alone in thinking this. Math is, in one theorists words, a rigorous aesthetic. Math is a lot less necessary than people seem to think - our math could have looked completely different if we'd focused on different axioms, different subjects, etc (we chose the ones we did because it fit certain practical problems relatwd to counting objects and measuring space, but it's arbitrary).
It is exactly art .... really, really autistic art, that has all the personality of an expressionless face and a monotone voice, but art all the same.
>>7370317
Art is aimed to express the experience of being "me". It's a mean of self expression, focused on subjectivity and personal facts. Math have beauty, i agree, but it's not art.
>>7370388
Eh, I don't think art needs to be that. Hell, a lot of the neatest art from the 20th century intentionally destroyed the influence of the human hand as much as possible.
>>7370397
Whats your definition of art?
>>7370672
When these kind of questions arise in a debate you know it's going to the wrong road.
>>7367229
Nobody gives a shit
>>>/trash/
>>7367229
As a theoretical physicist with a background in mathematics, I can't disagree more. The very act of abstracting physical concepts into a falsifiable framework is creative, and a reflection of the researcher. One alaays wonders that were Descartes in the Arab world, would the domed architecture have lead to polar-spherical coordinates rather than the cubic-orthogonal coordinates we have now. Indeed, going beyond that, if you are familiar with physics and mathematica, you will find a great deal of the author in any given work - especially single-author paapera and theses.
>>7367229
You seem to imply that 1million monkeys banging away at type writers for 1000 years wouldn't uncover all literary techniques, devices, and original ideas in the same way thousands of scientists hypothesizing wouldnt eventually state all nature laws and functions.
Its very arrogant of you to imply that theres no genius in science. It marks you as not very versed in modern scientific discoveries to argue that despite the fact that very few fully understand quantum mechanics you think if you devoted your time you would have been another Einstein yourself.
People talk about engi being an end all be all articulation of how nature works in all its ordered and harmonious glory, but after having gotten through a good bit of my undergraduate education in engineering I would say its more equivalent to being a clusterfuck. Excepting pure math, a lot of this shit we don't really understand too well and just brute force solutions with computers.
>>7371092
>very few fully understand quantum mechanics
This is a meme perpetuated by non-physicists. It's not true except in the sense that every technical field is "fully" understood by only a small group of experts. There's nothing very mystical about quantum mechanics; undergraduates in every physics department study and understand it.
>>7367229
OP, nothing is more personal than mathematics. Just because it's not "bad poetry", i.e. not sentimental and gauche, doesn't mean it's not poetry. When you reach a high level in mathematics you can see the extremely individuated nature of mathematical expression. If you describe an idea to me which was created by a famous topologist, I can immediately tell you whose it was, just on the basis of personal style. Similarly it was said of Newton that one "knows the lion by his claw."
If you think that math is "cold logic" or "the highest expression of art" or something similarly hyperbolic, in either direction, you are out of touch and uneducated. You shouldn't be making these vast generalizations about fields unless you have 10+ years of research experience and are at the Ph.D. level in math AND history of math. I only know of one person in the world at that level, and I doubt it's any of you.
>>7371087
blah blah blah
lots of telling, no showing.
put up or get out.
>>7371163
>very few fully understand quantum mechanics
>"fully" understood by only a small group of experts
so what i said was true and your post was irrelevant?
>>7370388
if you think this, you can't consider anything more than 300 years old art and that's just fucking stupid
>>7370388
>Art is aimed to express the experience of being "me"
Millennials actually believe this
Math can, and does, provide structure for art.
Can't math be aesthetic without being expressive like art? There's a beauty to it like there are to many other fields and to nature but they aren't exactly art. They are unique in that way.
>>7371745
It is the beginning of an aesthetic.
>>7371738
but its not art itself.
>>7371991
Art cannot live without it. Art can either confirm or deny the existence of mathematical principles. Art that tries to deny the existence of mathematics, are actually proofs of the value of zero.
How much credit we choose to give math depends on individual perspective.
>>7372006
Dependeds on what you are analizing. Where is the math in literature for example?
>>7372253
Number of words, number of concepts, words wrapped around / in relation in concepts...hell, even calculus applies here.
>>7372256
Not that anon but you're making a classic error. Art can exist without math just like a rock can exist without math; math only enters the picture when you want to analyze the object in question based on those terms (number of words, number of concepts, etc.) because math is a language and an analytical tool. The map (or in this case the math) is not the territory.
>>7372258
Right, I said it was the support system for the territory.
Thanks for agreeing.
>>7372265
It's not a support system at all, it's s language used to describe the territory but the territory is in no way dependent on the description for its existence. A rock exists regardless of your attempt to call it a rock.
It seems you have this idea of mathematics as a real, concrete thing instead of a descriptive language that is significantly divorced from reality.
>>7372280
It's language used to describe the principles behind the territory. the territory itself being art, or what have you--any form of existence.
as you said, mathematics exists and we had to create a language for it
