Art is the queen of science

From a 19th centure viewpoint mathematics and physics were the queen of science. They have powered the industrial revolution. Things like steam engines, healthy food, airplanes and the computer wouldn't come reality without mathematics and physics. Both subjects are investigating the inner working of nature, and create formulas to describe the given order. Subordinated engineers are transforming the laws of physics into practical products.

That was the situation in the 19th century, but now the world has changed. In today, and even more for tomorrow's needs there is a demand for something which is more powerful then pyhsics and mathematics. The best example in which cases physics fail is to the task of programming a computer. Without software a computer is nothing, but physics alone can't answer the question how to program the machine. Sourcecode is not given in the nature, it is something which is entirely with imagination. Programming a computer have much in common with painting an image or with creating music. This is not only a detail problem, it is about everything.

Software engineering and writing documents about how to program artificial intelligence is not located inside the subject of mathematics and physics, it has it's own category. Or to be more precise, it is the same category like painting, dance, music and literature before, called arts. Art is something which stays in contrast to mathematics and physics. It is something which isn't available in nature. Humans are the only one who can create art. And the subject who is talking about creating poetry, sourcecode and everything else what is important in the future is called arts. I would go a step further, and argue that mathematics have nothing to say about software engineering. Mathematics have invented the computer in the 1930 and the electric current have made the computer real. But everything which is beyond this trivial starting point is outside the scope of mathematics.

Let us make a simple example. We want to talk about the paintings of Leonardo da vinci because he used an agile workflow. The idea is to see the past as a blueprint for writing better software. Would it make sense to discuss the topic inside mathematics or physics? No, it is offtopic there. Da vince, and all other artis are located inside the art. Because their main aim was to be creative, that means to think about something which is not given by nature.

Somebody may argue, that physics can also be creative. No it can't. Physics is restricted to the reality. For example, a perpetum mobile is not possible in reality, so it is not a topic for serious scientists. And they are right. If somebody want's to discuss about perpetum mobiles he should do this from the perspective of art. For example, he can collect some paintings of the past who shows such a machine, and he talk about the history of the dream of such a machine. SUch a discussion is possible inside arts, and there are many example which are already there. It makes no sense, to redefine the subjects and to promote to talk about non-science topics inside the physics. The baseline for talking about imagination, fictional machines, computer programming, and artificial intelligence is the subject arts. It is one the same level like abstract painting, modern music and poetry. That means, it is purely imagination and has nothing to do with physics or mathematics.

In today's curriculum the distinction is not so clear as needed. Programming software and artificial intelligence is in most universities located in the mathematics department in the so called computer science departure. This classification is wrong. There is a huge difference between Physics and software engineering. The first one, Physics, is a science. Which means it is rational, is based on reality, and can be right or wrong. While the second one (programming) is not based on reality, is depended from the artist and his understanding of the world and is driven by emotions. The best example is the LInux kernel mailing list, which is poetry at is best. The people there are without any doubt involved in one of the most important software projects, and on the same time they are not discussing about nature laws, but about art works which were invented by somebody and are now under the judgement. This judgment is never true or false it depends on other categories. The working process on the Linux mailing list is very equal to the working of a art-community or a music-orchester. But it is very different to what physicists or mathematicians are doing.

The misconception is, that in the mainstream computing and artificial intelligence is located inside the mathematics department because the assumption is, that it is a rational science. No it is not. A for-loop in a c-program have more in common with a perpepetum mobile and other purely non-serious inventions like an image of Malewitsch.

Mathematicians and Physicians are not interested in speaking as a deputy for artificial intelligence. They see the discipline as something which is not part of their business. And they are right. Physics is science, Computing not. Physics is the search for truth, Computing not. Physics is based on rationality, logical formulas and stochastic models, artificial intelligence not.

Nature

Let us go back into the beginning of physics. The basic idea was, that the nature has to be understand. That means, the wind is not a random force, it can be predicted. The electric current is not simply there it can be reproduced by an action. If the aim is to understand nature, the hard-science are great. Physics combined with Math, biology and chemistry have a long successful tradition in recognizing universal laws. On the other hand, they have a weakness too. If a physicists wants to try to make music or painting an image he will fail. It is nothing which is teached in a Physics class. The reason why the art department is at the other side of the campus and in most cases in a different university has to do with the fact, that art is something which is different from physics. Art is based on human culture. That means, artworks from the past are collected, interpreted on a subjective way and the aim is to create something which wasn't there before. Art produces his own rules and they can't be expressed mathematically.

Let us go back to the example with a perpetuate mobile. Suppose an art student who likes to make movies is creating a pseudo perpetuum mobile. He is using a hidden electric wire which is not visible in the film and paints the machine in a certain look to increase the effect for the audiance. From the perspective of arts, he has done great work. The movie looks great, the machine works as expected and he was very creative. But, if the same project is observed by a serious physicists he will come to the opposite evaluation. Because the art student has understood nothing, especially not the laws of thermodynamics and his machine won't work, it is fake and non-scientific.

Who is wrong? Nobody, because art is different from physics. The first one has to do with creativity and making nonsense, while the second one has to do with reality and rationality. The only mistake which can happen is, that the art student is not aware about the difference between the subjects. The language to communicate in each of the subjects is fixed and different. A valid contribution to the arts is different from a valid contribution to a physics debate. I think, the distinction is right. It is a best practice method, that arts doesn't understand physics and vica versa.

The image Waterfall from M. C. Escher is a famous example about the difference. From an art perspective the image is great. It was created by a professional painter and has an interesting topic. From the perspective of physics, the image can be ignored, because it contains nonsense information which are contradicting the reality. It makes no sense to explain the flow of water with such kind of art.