Quantum Poetics

[WAB]

Can there ever be a meaningful, useful synthesis of science and poetry? Since I'm not a scientist, I've no possible way to really approach the question, but I know* there are scientist/poets amongst us here who might be able to.

The Alphabets of the Future are Wormholes

Heisenberg, whose uncertainty principle was part of his development of matrix mechanics, was concerned that quantum theory does not have an adequate language beyond mathematics to describe it. Heisenberg comes close to proposing that poetry is that language in Physics and Philosophy (1958) when, immediately after articulating this concern, he references Goethe’s Faust to describe his understanding of the structure of language. Mephistopheles says that while formal education instructs that logic braces the mind “in Spanish boots so tightly laced,” and that even spontaneous acts require a sequential process (“one, two, three!”):

In truth the subtle web of thought
Is like the weaver’s fabric wrought:
One treadle moves a thousand lines,
Swift dart the shuttles to and fro,
Unseen the threads together flow,
A thousand knots one stroke combines.

Heisenberg, while arguing that science must be as attentive to imagination as to logic, also seems to be suggesting that novel sciences must be described by novel languages. As I learned in kevin mcpherson eckhoff’s rhapsodomancy (Coach House, 2010), the alphabets of the future are wormholes: creative forms of language like poetry have the ability to not only describe novel expressions of physical reality but to invent them through its shorthand, “one treadle” moving “a thousand lines,” where a “thousand knots one stroke combines.” Since the concern in theoretical physics today is reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity through proposals such as string theory, poetry might be thought of as an experiment in physics and physics as a field test for poetry.

The above is a short quote from a giant article (actually part 4 of an even larger article) I don't expect anyone to read all the way through in order to join the thread. The author is Amy Catanzano, whom I have only just heard of but immediately admire. I feel like a character in a Henry James novel, love at first sight and all that.

I'm sorry for being a wingnut batshit crazy moron douchebag in the past. I am not certain of anything at this point. I just have to keep my noodle going, or it'll be toys in the attic for me from here on out, what with Charlie having stolen the handle and the train that won't stop going...


*(and you two know who you are because you've recently posted in the poetry thread)


Edited in: If a mod would prefer that this be in the pseudoscience forum, that's perfectly fine with me. In fact, I think maybe I ought to have put it there.

 

[untermensche]

If something can only be described by mathematics that is the end of the story.

It is something that can only be described by mathematics.

It is something that will always only be partially understood.

Invented stories and many adjectives will never explain it.

 

[WAB]

Thanks, unter. You are probably right.

I thought someone (specifically) might jump right in and suggest that we've had a synthesis of science and poetry for ages, and that we call it philosophy.

Oddly enough, your last sentence reminded me that the celebrated poet Muriel Rukeyser has stuck a wonderful phrase into the collective mind, which has been an irritant to many, but which, of course, is not to be taken literally:

The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.

What I particularly like is that that line has probably been more often quoted by scientists than by poets. Theoretical physicists mainly.

 

[untermensche]

Thanks, unter. You are probably right.

I thought someone (specifically) might jump right in and suggest that we've had a synthesis of science and poetry for ages, and that we call it philosophy.

Oddly enough, your last sentence reminded me that the celebrated poet Muriel Rukeyser has stuck a wonderful phrase into the collective mind, which has been an irritant to many, but which, of course, is not to be taken literally:

The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.

What I particularly like is that that line has probably been more often quoted by scientists than by poets. Theoretical physicists mainly.

Science has long ago stopped trying to describe what things are.

They can only describe how things behave.

An electron is not known for what it is.

It is only known for how it behaves. Forms a "cloud". Has a charge. And some people think that is what it is.

But a thing and it's behavior are not the same thing.

 

[WAB]

Gulrez Khan, Senior Data Scientist at Microsoft, is one scientist who likes the Muriel Rukeyser line. This is an interesting, albeit not terribly compelling, video.

I offer the link only as an example of real people in the real world, scientists, who are comfortable with reaching outside of their particular discipline and working toward an imaginative synthesis of science and art (poetry, whatever).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY80Lw0Vnb8

 

[Bronzeage]

Can there ever be a meaningful, useful synthesis of science and poetry?.......

This is one of those questions which best answered by another question, "Why not?"

There is no definition of poetry, which serves the purpose of excluding things which are not poetry. The best we can do is set parameters for a type of poetry, and proceed to find something which fits. One of my favorite poetic forms is the 7 line non rhyming limerick. To claim something is not poetic, or any expression is not a poem, is to only announce the discovery of a new poetic form.

I would go so far to say, without poetry, science could not exist. A mind which cannot produce the metaphors, similes, and other images from which poetry is constructed, could never stand in the center of a flat plain, encircled by nothing but the horizon, and conceive that he is standing on a round planet.

 

[WAB]

Thanks, Bronzeage. I've never heard of the 7 lined limerick, so I'll have to look it up after I post this wee bit:

Being that I prefer metered poetry to free verse, and being that my only language is English, it has happened that my favorite element of poetry, in the technical sense, is the iamb: two syllables, the first unstressed, the second stressed. Iambic pentameter is probably the most universally known English measure, thanks to Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Tennyson, and a truckload of others.

What's interesting is that the iamb is kind of like the heartbeat in reverse. The heartbeat is more of a trochee, a stress followed by a downbeat. Also it's binary, which links to digital, etc.

Dactyls and anapests suggest arrhythmia, which could be why I don't favor them, and rarely use them, unless necessary for a particular form, like the classic limerick, for example.

 

[fromderinside]

All the above leaves me wondering whether definition has any purpose. For instance, is it wading when one's walking in water over one's head?

As for poetry is it a form of prose or are things the other way around and why?

Continuing, is poetry art or is art poetry? What makes them different? It is not specification through definition? Or is it only necessary for context be specified to put definition in perspective?

 

[untermensche]

All the above leaves me wondering whether definition has any purpose. For instance, is it wading when one's walking in water over one's head?

That's a question about words and the meaning of words.

Is the plane "flying"? What is a "tree"?

Words are far more complicated than the beings that use them realize.

They are conceptions in the mind. But they are not neat and tidy. They are messy and overlap because some conceptions are related to other conceptions.

Judgement requires both memory and experience.

But when I write the word "experience" is means something different to everyone who sees it.

 

[WAB]

All the above leaves me wondering whether definition has any purpose. For instance, is it wading when one's walking in water over one's head?

Nope, that would be drowning, at least for me, since I can't swim. Which is why I don't meddle in the science threads. But in seriousness, I for one think definitions are enormously important, and have great purpose.

As for poetry is it a form of prose or are things the other way around and why?

I live under the impression that poetry and prose are different: prose being what Henry James and Nathaniel Hawthorne did, and poetry being what Tennyson and Browning did. However, guys like James, Hawthorne, and Melville, wrote such beautiful prose at times that it was a kind of poetry. There are also poets whose work is more like prose than poetry, and these are usually free-versers who write without meter or any sense of measured cadence, who basically write prose and chop it up with line-breaks. That kind of thing can be fabulous, depending on who's doing it. I admire formal and free verse equally, and about a third of my work is in free verse.

Continuing, is poetry art or is art poetry? What makes them different? It is not specification through definition? Or is it only necessary for context be specified to put definition in perspective?

All poetry is art, but not all art is poetry, just as all sofas are furniture, but not all furniture are (is?) sofas.

I think, as regards the topic of the thread, "poetics" probably includes all artistic work, not just the literary kind.

I would imagine context is necessary for defining anything.

 

[Copernicus]

I like Rukeyser's line ("The universe is made of stories, not of atoms."), because what scientists do is build models of reality that are fundamentally narratives based on metaphor. Human cognition is fundamentally a process of forming associative bonds with experiences--analogies. The structure of linguistic expression is very heavily grounded in metaphor. (See Lakoff and Johnson's  Metaphors We Live By.)

Poetry likely arose as a mnemonic device to help preserve historical records in an oral tradition, and that is why it is normally structured in terms of rhythmic cadences. However, metaphor and other types of analogy are also core components of poetic structure, just as they are of scientific theories. In a sense, the mathematics that scientists use to describe physical reality is also a kind of metaphor. (See Lakoff and Nunez's  Where Mathematics Comes From.)

 

[Treedbear]

Can there ever be a meaningful, useful synthesis of science and poetry? Since I'm not a scientist, I've no possible way to really approach the question, but I know* there are scientist/poets amongst us here who might be able to.
...

...

Continuing, is poetry art or is art poetry? What makes them different? It is not specification through definition? Or is it only necessary for context be specified to put definition in perspective?

All poetry is art, but not all art is poetry, just as all sofas are furniture, but not all furniture are (is?) sofas.

I think, as regards the topic of the thread, "poetics" probably includes all artistic work, not just the literary kind.

I would imagine context is necessary for defining anything.

From your OP I wasn't sure you thought poetry had to be an art form. I think all art is a statement about humanity and is either a statement about beauty as a reflection of something good or something good that has gone missing. Goodness in terms of what the human species requires in order to exist and continue. So of course there can be beauty in scientific inquiry, if for no other reason than that it's an expression of our fundamental ability to reason. And an important component of any art form is an appreciation of the skill that was required in its creation. Another aspect is certainly an expression of wonder and revelation at how we as human beings and as living things are expressions of the universe as it is. But unfortunately I'm not a scientist or an artist. I don't think you mean science fiction/poetry. You might mean the philosophy of science and poetry. That would be fertile ground.

 

[Bronzeage]

Thanks, Bronzeage. I've never heard of the 7 lined limerick, so I'll have to look it up after I post this wee bit:

Being that I prefer metered poetry to free verse, and being that my only language is English, it has happened that my favorite element of poetry, in the technical sense, is the iamb: two syllables, the first unstressed, the second stressed. Iambic pentameter is probably the most universally known English measure, thanks to Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Tennyson, and a truckload of others.

What's interesting is that the iamb is kind of like the heartbeat in reverse. The heartbeat is more of a trochee, a stress followed by a downbeat. Also it's binary, which links to digital, etc.

Dactyls and anapests suggest arrhythmia, which could be why I don't favor them, and rarely use them, unless necessary for a particular form, like the classic limerick, for example.

Iambic sounds nice, and when it works, it's worth the effort. Unfortunately, iambic is borrowed from Greek and Latin, and English does not lend itself to measured beats. If I were to write in Latin, I could rearrange the words in almost any order, either for the stresses or poetic emphasis, and not change the meaning. This seldom works in English. "I love you" and "You love I," are not equivalent and the latter is not grammatical.

The ideal form for English is open verse, which some say is no form at all, but I reference my previous comments.

 

[Copernicus]

English meter, unlike Latin, is stress-timed. That is, the "foot" is the time between two stress peaks. Moreover, English words tend to having alternating stress patterns, which lend themselves to iambic meter. Latin meter, like Old English meter, was dictated more by syllable length rather than stress. So the two languages are going to have different ways of counting and measuring meters. Myself, I don't usually find open verse poetry as enjoyable as metered poetry, and I have never felt that it sounded particularly natural. However, that is just a matter of my tastes.

 

[WAB]

Thanks Treedbear, I will look at that link.

*

Bronzeage, I think the problem with iambic pentameter, or any iambic verse, but especially IP, is that when the poet is doing it badly the meter draws too much attention to itself and the verse begins to sound monotonous and plodding. Having been active as a senior member at 2 big poetry boards, I can testify that people who are beginners with meter, or who simply can't get a real grasp of it, often wind up producing the most heart-wrenchingly pitiful poems. But then again, someone who has a tin ear will write lousy free verse as well.

A poet who knows how to write in IP, like Shakespeare, arguably the greatest master of it in English, will mix things up, make all sorts of metrical substitutions, etc. One of the greatest pleasures of my life has been to study and enjoy the various ways the giants went about their craft.

*

Thanks for your input, Copernicus. Mentioning Latin meter, I can't resist putting up my absolute favorite line of poetry, which, as a linguist, you will probably recognize:

Quadrupedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum [Virgil]
Then struck the hoofs of the steeds on the ground with a four-footed trampling

If recited correctly, you can actually hear the sound of the horses galloping. Masterful and wonderful!

I guess this thread has picked up on the poetry end but lifted its dainty skirt and backed out of the deeper waters of science, which I suppose was inevitable.

^ Guess which part of that last sentence is the poetry-bit. : )

 

[steve_bank]

Particles are like a bid in a forest singing in the distance, The closer you get the father away it sounds,

 

[WAB]

Particles are like a bid in a forest singing in the distance, The closer you get the father away it sounds,

Wonderful, Steve, it's practically a tanka, a kind of elongated haiku, though without any syllable count (which is unnecessary anyway, as a lot of these early Japanese forms are currently being written without any syllable count.) I have always thought the 5-7-5 haiku was a Western artifice. I've written some haiku, but never tanka. If I were to lineate this, it would go something like:


Particles are like a bird
in a forest singing
in the distance,
the closer you get
the farther away it sounds

OR:

Particles are like
a bird in a forest singing
in the distance,
the closer you get
the farther away it sounds

***

Sample from wiki, where the 5-7-5 /7-7 count is not adhered to in the English translation.



東海の Tōkai no
小島の磯の kojima no iso no
白砂に shirasuna ni
われ泣きぬれて ware naki nurete
蟹とたわむる kani to tawamuru

In English trans:

On the white sand
Of the beach of a small island
In the Eastern Sea.
I, my face streaked with tears,
Am playing with a crab

—Ishikawa Takuboku[5]

***

You wanna bet dollars to donuts your poem could get published in a tanka mag? I'd literally bet money on it, if I had any money!

 

[steve_bank]

ActuallyvI stole it from a line by Spock in a Star Trek episode. Logic is like a bird...

 

[WAB]

ActuallyvI stole it from a line by Spock in a Star Trek episode. Logic is like a bird...

Well...dang it. I was jazzed there.

I'm even looking into the first great anthology of Japanese poetry, the Man'yōshū, complied sometime around/after 759 AD.

And for something really funny, I just mentioned Spock in the Poetry Thread:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?375-The-New-Poetry-Thread&p=549268&viewfull=1#post549268

This was some 2 hrs before your post fessing up to plagiarizing His Pointy Eared Eminence.

Perhaps this is some sign that we are approaching the next great dimensional paradigm shift wherein the poles of the equinox of the celestial intertwinihood will coalesce to bring forth a new age of Silliness for all?

Searching, I found this, which is really nothing as cool as what you wrote. Is there another quote, or is this what you were riffing off of? :