[00:59:20] <Millennial> but the basic problem i see in many fields, not just high energy physics, is this way of thinking that if you have enough data to analyze, the data will speak for itself and all you need is just to change your theory to fit the data
[00:59:26] <-- linelevel (linelevel@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/linelevel) has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
[00:59:32] <-- CubicEarths (~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[00:59:42] <alexandre_> but data is all we have really
[00:59:47] <-- seeit (~seeit@cpe-173-174-171-244.satx.res.rr.com) has quit
[00:59:47] <Millennial> alexandre_: that's not true
[00:59:53] <alexandre_> what more can we do than develop a theory that fits the data?
[00:59:57] <alexandre_> what more do we have?
[00:59:59] --> CubicEarths (~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined ##math
[01:00:11] <Millennial> you have your own intution about whether a theory is good or bad
[01:00:18] <Millennial> intuition*
[01:00:22] <Millennial> but that's "subjective"
[01:00:29] <alexandre_> how is our intuition not "data"?
[01:00:30] <Millennial> so people ignore it at great peril to themselves
[01:00:33] --> alphamul2 (~nibbles@174-22-176-110.clsp.qwest.net) has joined ##math
[01:00:34] <-- alphamule (~nibbles@174-24-110-235.clsp.qwest.net) has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
[01:00:45] <alexandre_> i mean our intuition is just built from our observation of the world around us
[01:00:50] <Millennial> is it
[01:00:58] --> tomtomgps (~tomtomgps@85-69-131-212.rev.numericable.fr) has joined ##math
[01:01:08] <Millennial> and even if it is, if you don't understand how, what good does that knowledge do for you
[01:01:34] <alexandre_> where else does our intuition come from?
[01:02:11] <Millennial> alexandre_: where do you think your sense of beauty comes from
[01:02:15] <-- pokalyis (~nerium@150.107.204.193) has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
[01:02:22] <Millennial> do you think it comes from observation
[01:02:34] <-- tomtomgps (~tomtomgps@85-69-131-212.rev.numericable.fr) has left ##math
[01:02:42] --> negatratoron (~negatrato@2601:441:8680:4631:641:d23d:2a22:335d) has joined ##math
[01:02:58] --> tomtomgps (~tomtomgps@85-69-131-212.rev.numericable.fr) has joined ##math
[01:03:03] <alexandre_> it comes from chemical pathways that have evolved to seek out pleasing things and this evolution was constrained by the physical world
[01:03:22] <Millennial> alexandre_: you're making a fallacy here
[01:03:28] <alexandre_> which is?
[01:03:30] <Millennial> the chemical pathways can at best explain why you can feel beauty
[01:03:34] <Millennial> they do not explain why beauty exists
[01:03:46] <audis> it's tensor, many chemicals
[01:04:00] <audis> "more than sum" would say philosophist
[01:04:03] <Millennial> how is it possible that there is such a thing as beauty for you to feel? where does that state of consciousness, the experience come from?
[01:04:14] <math102_> our intuition is build to avoid predator, that why we so good at pattern
[01:04:44] <Millennial> and even if you say the evolution was constrained by the physical world, whatever that means, why do you think humans find flowers beautiful
[01:04:58] <Millennial> flowers did not evolve to appear beautiful to humans, and humans did not evolve to find flowers beautiful
[01:05:03] <alexandre_> well eventually all these types of questions will come down to questions of consciousness in which case its merely speculation
[01:05:11] <Millennial> we can't identify any selection pressure which would lead to that outcome
[01:05:14] <Millennial> and yet here it is
[01:05:24] <kingrodian> flowers have pretty colors, like fruits
[01:05:41] <math102_> i found some flower not beautiful.
[01:05:45] <Millennial> alexandre_: yes, so the correct answer is not "chemical pathways"
[01:05:48] <Millennial> it's "i don't know"
[01:05:53] <alexandre_> well im not an evolutionary biologist by any stretch of the word but flowering plants typically bear fruit so its not a stretch to imagine that we did evolve to find flowers beautiful for a good resaon
[01:06:04] --> mindCrime (~mindCrime@ip-64-134-184-20.public.wayport.net) has joined ##math
[01:06:09] <Millennial> alexandre_: not sure how that would be relevant
[01:06:14] --> Ryswick (~Ryswick@pool-68-129-86-9.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has joined ##math
[01:06:14] <Millennial> do you find everything you eat beautiful
[01:06:26] <jle`> i wouldn't rule out there being a selective pressure for the experience of appreciating beauty
[01:06:31] <audis> I think it's the fine patterns in flowers
[01:06:34] <-- Hunterkll (~Hunterkll@remote.kisaracorporation.com) has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[01:06:37] <audis> they are like clockwork by aliens
[01:06:53] <alexandre_> I was answering your question as to why I regard things as beautiful and not whether there is inherent beauty (which I thought I already established in the negative)
[01:06:57] --> Hunterkll (~Hunterkll@2001:470:8b06:100:68fa:b33b:c32a:9252) has joined ##math
[01:07:15] <alexandre_> anyway i dont mean to dismiss the conversation as I do find it interesting but its not really relevant here