augeri@regina.DEC (Mike Augeri) (06/12/85)
lll-crg!brooks writes: > Give me a break, aesthetics and intuition like beauty are in the the eye > of the beholder! The bottom line for physical theory is whether or not it > is in agreement with experimental data, not just one part of it but ALL if it. I think that lll-crg!brooks passes off aesthetics and intuition a little too lightly. I think that it is important that the supporting description of a theory appeal to people's aesthetics and intuition. I think that many physicists also must feel this way otherwise why would they spend so much time devising thought experiments to help us visualize the abstract mathematical descriptions of theories? Further, I think that the person who formulated the theory must have applied his/her intuition in order to formulate the theory in the first place. The difficult part is communicating that intuition to others so that they can understand the theory. As for aesthetics, it seems to me that the belief that nature should exhibit symmetry is an admission that aesthetics is important in formulating our vision of the universe. Mike Augeri (DEC, Maynard MA, USA)
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (06/20/85)
> > Give me a break, aesthetics and intuition like beauty are in the the eye > > of the beholder! The bottom line for physical theory is whether or not it > > is in agreement with experimental data, not just one part of it but ALL if it. > > I think that lll-crg!brooks passes off aesthetics and intuition a little > too lightly. I think that it is important that the supporting description > of a theory appeal to people's aesthetics and intuition. I think that many Not True, The real fact is that lll-crg!brooks finds QM totally acceptible on the aesthetics and intuition front. Aesthetics and intuition are not the same for everyone.