Professor John Hunton, University of Leicester, describing Penrose Tiling, a type of geometry Roger Penrose came up with in the 70's, solving a long standing math problem, how to come up with a tiling pattern, that could cover an infinitely large sized object with a non repeating pattern.
10 years later 3D Penrose Tiling patterns were found in nature, in Quasicrystals, and just recently received a Nobel Prize.

They were always there, we just didn't have the language or geometry to describe them until Penrose developed his two shapes, the kite and dart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTrM-UVcgBY

Is this the correct subreddit?


Asking for a friend...

Like Faulkner said, “I don’t know what I think ‘till I see what I say”.

Oh please, Mary! How do you think language evolves?

You could say the same thing about religion...

One of my favorite rewards of being a scientist is being able to name something new, that has not existed before, with previously unknown activity, and utility created in our own labs.

So I kind of think the above quote is bullshit.

Just saying.

Say Hi to Beaker.

You are talking about science as a process, not a philosophy. The latter needs a language. Many measurable phenomena are considered non-scientific because of this.

Lack of first principles isn't necessary a show stopper. Look at Quantum Mechanics. Of course, the same lack of first principles opens the door to the God of the gaps and the cat drags in all kinds of woo people. The same language is used for very different ends. The physicists might not like it, but they chose to work in a field where the line between science and religion is not well defined.

Mormonism is primarily a language for conveying spiritual concepts. Joseph Smith made it all up, then made it stick through the force of his personality plus maybe some mental illness. But it was a newly synthesized language and it was functional. Everything hinged on belief, which turned out to be a real problem in the modern era.

"Science can't see what it doesn't have the language to describe."

Hedning: "One of my favorite rewards of being a scientist is being able to name something new, that has not existed before, with previously unknown activity, and utility created in our own labs. So I kind of think the above quote is bullshit."

COMMENT: Your point is well-taken in one sense, but short-sighted in another. Obviously the history of science has shown that *new* scientific terms, concepts, mathematical formulas, and theories are generated all the time from new experimental and observational data that came first. In this sense, observations come before terminology (language). The language of science is fluid and open-ended, which is why scientific knowledge progresses.

But this misses the broader point. "Science" must begin with a logical structure, which necessarily includes concepts, terms, and formalism existing within a natural language, and in some cases the language of mathematics. As such, when you discover or invent a new phenomenon, from experiment or just observation, that was not previously known or that did not previously exist, such an experience cannot have scientific relevance or significance outside of a theoretical structure (language) which allows you to understand it and communicate it to others. In this sense, "science can't 'see' what it doesn't have the language to describe." In other words, in science proper language must come first.

If you think of a pre-historic man (without language), you can imagine him or her experiencing a bolt of lightning, say, hitting a tree and starting a fire. By ostensive reference, he might think and reason through imagery alone "that caused this" without any use of language. He might then go about his life looking for patterns of connection between his other experiences while mentally developing a 'theory' about such connections. (All of this without language) But is this science? I would say no, because of the lack of any formalism; any structure, upon which to connect his imagery and experiences into abstract laws and principles. So, for me, the order of science is as follows:

Consciousness-experience-pattern recognition-language-(and finally) science.

In any event, the OP heading is NOT just BS.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Consciousness-experience-pattern
> recognition-language-(and finally) science.

Language contains science. It isn't a progression.

Is this relevant to anything ?

Math is the language of science. That is why so many people are science illiterate. They don't understand the language. Scientists are translators.

Unfortunately, many have accepted the idea that they should ignore the translators, and guess instead. It is the chief problem in human society today in my view.


HH =)

Science can't see anything.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science can't see anything.


But scientists can, once they have the language (math) to understand it.

And like Moses they can come down from their lofty vantage point and help us? There is nothing conclusive about scientific work being able to untangle another bit of existence's Gordian Knot.