If one believes that the great artist ranks higher in the cultural scale or possesses a unique skill or insight into the human condition superior to that of the great scientist, the reason for such a view is likely as follows: The work produced by a great artist is unique to that artist. If Beethoven hadn’t written his symphonies, no one else could have. The work of a great scientist, no matter how powerful, would eventually be discovered or formulated by one or more scientists at a later date.
Thus, Archimedes’ great work in physics and mathematics, even if it were centuries ahead of everyone else, would eventually have been discovered by others. Similarly, Newton’s optics and celestial mechanics would eventually have been formulated by others had Newton not lived. Indeed, his discovery of the calculus was independently made by Leibniz a short while after Newton’s.
Einstein’s work starts to show the narrowing of the creative difference between science and art. Doubtless, the discoveries of his Annus Mirabilis (1905), during which he published his discoveries on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2), would have eventually been formulated by several other physicists. His general theory of relativity is a different order of science.
As keen a scientist as Richard Feynman, who obviously understood the nuances of general relativity, said he couldn’t understand how Einstein had conceived the theory. Widely acknowledged as a theory of extraordinary mathematical beauty, general relativity has often been described as the most beautiful of all existing physical theories. It approaches the unique. It’s a legitimate question whether any other scientist would have formulated the theory. There was an “element of revelation” in the manner in which Einstein arrived at his theory, said the great astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
The concept I’m suggesting is that the deeper one goes into nature and the universe, the greater the demand on the intellect. Eventually, the problems that remain to be solved may be so difficult that the equivalent of a Beethoven is required to solve them. This idea is a continuation of the argument I made in my recent article on the photon. I will not introduce the role of advanced AI here, but stick to the convergence of human genius in the arts compared to that in the sciences.
Reconciliation of general relativity with the laws of quantum physics remains a problem, as no self-consistent theory of quantum gravity has been found. Both theories pass experimental testing, yet they remain unreconciled. It is also not yet known how gravity can be unified with the three non-gravitational forces: strong, weak, and electromagnetic. The solution to these problems may test the limits of human thinking and, if solved, require the scientific equivalent of Michelangelo or Verdi. Absent the appearance of such a scientific genius, these problems may never be solved by a human.
If Verdi had not written Falstaff, no one else would have produced his dazzling score. Whether Einstein’s general theory of relativity falls into the same creative category as Falstaff is uncertain and likely unknowable – but it’s at least close. The next great scientific theory almost certainly will be as great a creative accomplishment as Falstaff or the Eroica Symphony. Ironically, this convergence of artistic and scientific genius is occurring at the same time as machine learning is threatening to overtake human accomplishment.
Do art and science have limits beyond which humans cannot go? Regardless, they seem to be heading toward a creative juncture. You do not have to be a genius to appreciate works of art and science far beyond what you can do on your own. The counterpoint of JS Bach is beyond the compositional capacity of virtually any musician, yet the layman can fully appreciate it.
The idea that information is more fundamental than the matter that conveys the information has slowly become a central concept in physics, according to the great physicist John Archibald Wheeler (Feynman’s teacher). This belief is hard to wrap your head around, but if its accurrate than there’s little difference between art and science. They are both about information.
Physics has reached the point where it seems almost certain that the next revolutionary discovery in the field will require a genius on the order of Beethoven or Verdi. Chemistry is a little bit behind, and biology is even a short distance behind chemistry. It seems likely that the distinction among all the sciences will be increasingly blurred as our knowledge expands. While Feynman thought the universe was stranger than one could imagine, every facet of nature likely fits into his view of the cosmos. The coming generation of great scientists will need the level of genius previously reserved for the artist. The distinction between art and science will cease to exist.
[…] Continued in next post. […]