Kelly Houle, an artist with a background in calligraphy and bookmaking has started an illuminated manuscript version of the first edition of On the Origin of Species. (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/596922807/the-illuminated-origin-of-species)
(http://www.illuminatedorigin.com/The_Illuminated_Origin_of_Species/Blank_files/CottonPage.jpg)
If you aren't familiar with illuminated manuscripts, they are books or parts of books which are scribed by hand and richly decorated with illustrations, especially those that incorporate gold leaf. The most famous illuminated book is the Book of Kells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Kells), a copy of the four Christian gospels from Ireland ca. 800 CE.
This is such a glorious project that I don't even know how to explain my feelings beyond that I start crying everytime I think about it. Right now she's working on the title page and the table of contents pages, and she's raising money through donations to fund it. This is the real deal, with nearly 2 by 2 1/2 foot pages, each one done by hand separately, fully illuminated. Nearly 300 in total when finished. This site has more information on her process. (http://www.illuminatedorigin.com/The_Illuminated_Origin_of_Species/Process.html) And what's more, when she's finished, it's going to be published in both a full size and trade size version.
And FURTHERMORE, she's not going to stop with OTOOS. She's going to make her life's work illuminating the great scientific texts.
Isn't this fucking amazing? If you can donate, please do. I'm going to donate 30 dollars because I want to see this happen.
WOWWW
I really hope she completes this project. Beautiful.
that is truly awesome!
Oh, that's stunning...
You know, I'm just stunned by this project, but I'm already thinking to when it's completed. What will she do next? How glorious would be an illuminated Principia Matematica, or Relativity, or The Double Helix? I would also love to see illuminated versions of On the Descent of Man and Journal of Researches (Voyage of the Beagle).
Dude. As soon as I have a bit to spare. Wow.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 13, 2011, 03:17:30 AM
You know, I'm just stunned by this project, but I'm already thinking to when it's completed. What will she do next? How glorious would be an illuminated Principia Matematica, or Relativity, or The Double Helix? I would also love to see illuminated versions of On the Descent of Man and Journal of Researches (Voyage of the Beagle).
I thought "hmm" at first but an illuminated
Principia Mathematica ... NOW you're talking! ;-)
I wonder about illustrations but even beautifully calligraphed formulas and proof would be so sweet.
Wikipedia says "PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon. The Modern Library placed it 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century."
They tried to lay the foundations of set theory, cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, and real numbers from the simplest axioms,
without paradoxes. A very noble goal until in 1930 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Consistency_and_criticisms)Goedel came up with his Incompleteness Theorem and smashed the very possibility of useful yet contradiction-less mathematics to bits. From that moment on, minds continue to be blown when they realize that even at the very core of abstract logic, Reality just refuses make sense. Of course, we know just who to blame for that, right?
Next time I'm in the second-hand bookshop, I'll have to see if I can find a (for now, non-illuminated) copy. You made me realize I want to have it on my shelves :)
Oh my god yes.
DAMN.
Very impressive.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2011, 12:13:03 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 13, 2011, 03:17:30 AM
You know, I'm just stunned by this project, but I'm already thinking to when it's completed. What will she do next? How glorious would be an illuminated Principia Matematica, or Relativity, or The Double Helix? I would also love to see illuminated versions of On the Descent of Man and Journal of Researches (Voyage of the Beagle).
I thought "hmm" at first but an illuminated Principia Mathematica ... NOW you're talking! ;-)
I wonder about illustrations but even beautifully calligraphed formulas and proof would be so sweet.
Wikipedia says "PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon. The Modern Library placed it 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century."
They tried to lay the foundations of set theory, cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, and real numbers from the simplest axioms, without paradoxes. A very noble goal until in 1930 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Consistency_and_criticisms)Goedel came up with his Incompleteness Theorem and smashed the very possibility of useful yet contradiction-less mathematics to bits. From that moment on, minds continue to be blown when they realize that even at the very core of abstract logic, Reality just refuses make sense. Of course, we know just who to blame for that, right?
Next time I'm in the second-hand bookshop, I'll have to see if I can find a (for now, non-illuminated) copy. You made me realize I want to have it on my shelves :)
My bias is biology and naturalism, of course. :) Newton was one of the most brilliant people ever, and Principia Mathematica would make an excellent illuminated manuscript. What's more, ND Tyson would probably personally fund the project.
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
I dunno, I actually wasn't aware that Newton used the words
Principia Mathematica in his book title. And the Russell & Whitehead book is
actually about the foundations of Mathematics :) I guess Newton's book is also pretty groundbreaking and such, but Russel & Whitehead's
Principia Mathematica would have more personal significance to myself.
Seems you didn't actually read much of my post, if you thought I was talking about Newton, though :)
Now I guess I'll have to check both. First I thought "why would I want a book with really old basic physics on my shelves, apart from name-dropping Newton?", but as I read on the other Wikipedia page, he also describes the methodology of how he used criteria to decide under observation what hypothetical laws were operating in which phenomena, and
that is of course pretty fundamental science. I wonder how readable it is.
I assumed the Whitehead/Russel book as well. And then I was thinking "How would one go about illuminating that text, anyway?"
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
I dunno, I actually wasn't aware that Newton used the words Principia Mathematica in his book title. And the Russell & Whitehead book is actually about the foundations of Mathematics :) I guess Newton's book is also pretty groundbreaking and such, but Russel & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica would have more personal significance to myself.
Seems you didn't actually read much of my post, if you thought I was talking about Newton, though :)
Now I guess I'll have to check both. First I thought "why would I want a book with really old basic physics on my shelves, apart from name-dropping Newton?", but as I read on the other Wikipedia page, he also describes the methodology of how he used criteria to decide under observation what hypothetical laws were operating in which phenomena, and that is of course pretty fundamental science. I wonder how readable it is.
Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica is one of the most important science books of all time, wherein he described the laws of motion, the laws of gravitation, and the motion of the planets, and HOW he went about figuring it out. The original is in Latin, which is what I expect the illuminated book would be in, but there are plenty of translations in English. It's no less readable than say, Euclid or Archimedes.
By your above mentality, why would I care about On the Origin of Species? I mean, it's not like I can't get newer books on evolution that are more up to date on the biology. The reason to care about PNPM is the same as OTOOS: it's the seminal work of a world class mind, which both explains some fundamental aspect of reality and also how it was figured out, by the person who figured it out.
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 08:20:53 PM
I assumed the Whitehead/Russel book as well. And then I was thinking "How would one go about illuminating that text, anyway?"
Really curly curly braces.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
Because the
Principia is about as foundational a text as it gets? It's a little pre-Formalist, which I guess dates it a bit, but other than that I'm pretty sure theorem I studied up through undergrad was either in that book, derivable from the theorems in that book, or based on playing with the axioms used in the
Principia and seeing what happens when you tweak them.
Also, unlike that messy, goopy discipline you call "science," the theories in it happen to be provably correct, in every possible universe.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 15, 2011, 03:04:14 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
Because the Principia is about as foundational a text as it gets? It's a little pre-Formalist, which I guess dates it a bit, but other than that I'm pretty sure theorem I studied up through undergrad was either in that book, derivable from the theorems in that book, or based on playing with the axioms used in the Principia and seeing what happens when you tweak them.
Also, unlike that messy, goopy discipline you call "science," the theories in it happen to be provably correct, in every possible universe.
Either that was a soft jab or I'll just ignore you from now on.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 15, 2011, 03:13:08 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 15, 2011, 03:04:14 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
Because the Principia is about as foundational a text as it gets? It's a little pre-Formalist, which I guess dates it a bit, but other than that I'm pretty sure theorem I studied up through undergrad was either in that book, derivable from the theorems in that book, or based on playing with the axioms used in the Principia and seeing what happens when you tweak them.
Also, unlike that messy, goopy discipline you call "science," the theories in it happen to be provably correct, in every possible universe.
Either that was a soft jab or I'll just ignore you from now on.
You're just jealous that your pet theories don't hold up in arbitrary universes. I mean, you could walk through a wardrobe into a universe in which a billion years ago some crazy omnipotent guy decided to make a ton of birds with like a bazillion different beak designs, and where all those same kinds of birds are still around today. People write stories
all the time about worlds where things you thought had been mostly settled by experimentation just aren't true. No amount of convergent evolution will explain how in Star Trek, every alien looks like some Earth organism, and a little under half of those alien individuals them have functional mammary glands.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 15, 2011, 03:57:53 AM
No amount of convergent evolution will explain how in Star Trek, every alien looks like some Earth organism, and a little under half of those alien individuals them have functional mammary glands.
You're looking at the wrong field, there, nitwit. That's simple mathematics. The jackasses over at the studio refused to shell out for REAL aliens.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 15, 2011, 01:50:59 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Newton? No I was thinking about the one by Russel & Whitehead.
Ah I see it now, Newton's is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Yeah. Why would you think I meant Russel & Whitehead?
I dunno, I actually wasn't aware that Newton used the words Principia Mathematica in his book title. And the Russell & Whitehead book is actually about the foundations of Mathematics :) I guess Newton's book is also pretty groundbreaking and such, but Russel & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica would have more personal significance to myself.
Seems you didn't actually read much of my post, if you thought I was talking about Newton, though :)
Now I guess I'll have to check both. First I thought "why would I want a book with really old basic physics on my shelves, apart from name-dropping Newton?", but as I read on the other Wikipedia page, he also describes the methodology of how he used criteria to decide under observation what hypothetical laws were operating in which phenomena, and that is of course pretty fundamental science. I wonder how readable it is.
Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica is one of the most important science books of all time, wherein he described the laws of motion, the laws of gravitation, and the motion of the planets, and HOW he went about figuring it out. The original is in Latin, which is what I expect the illuminated book would be in, but there are plenty of translations in English. It's no less readable than say, Euclid or Archimedes.
By your above mentality, why would I care about On the Origin of Species? I mean, it's not like I can't get newer books on evolution that are more up to date on the biology. The reason to care about PNPM is the same as OTOOS: it's the seminal work of a world class mind, which both explains some fundamental aspect of reality and also how it was figured out, by the person who figured it out.
Origin of Species -- Biology
Newton's Principia -- Physics
Principia Mathematica -- Mathematics
I just said the PM holds more personal significance to me, because I studied fundamental Computer Science and not Physics, not that I don't care about Newton's
Philosophiae Naturalis.
And about its significance, it might not be
as old but it ranks right up there with the other two. Wikipedia quotes:
"PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon."
(cited from here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#SOPM))
And yeah, as GA said, it holds in arbitrary universes, in fact it doesn't even quite need an actual existing universe to operate on. Whether that's an advantage or whether it risks mathematics from wandering into ideas completely detached from reality is of course another question.
And with that, I refer you to the wonderful philosophy of ultra-finitism :lol:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=103
Seriously, that's pretty awesome. I'm not so sure about
ultra finitism, but I'm not at all convinced myself, of "infinity" as an actual real concept, as opposed to a merely theoretical one. The uncountable type of infinity even less so, in the sense that we might save ourselves a bunch of paradoxes and do without that crazy infinito-stretchy thing and get rid of the Axiom of Choice too while we're at it. [/rant]
Is there a seminal text for chemistry?
List expanded:
Mathematics: Principia Mathematica
Physics: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and Relativity
Chemistry: ?
Biology: On the Origin of Species
As to the topic of infinity (and yes, I did like the link), I think mathematics may allow infinities, but the reality of this universe does not. And personally I think mathematics (a language) is useful only in as it describes, predicts and explains the actual universe. There doesn't seem to be infinite matter in the universe, nor infinite time, nor infinite space. Therefore infinities are a practical impossibility, and are often just shorthand for immense, inexact quantities.
The best I can think of for Chemistry would be the first Periodic Table. But the accompanying paper doesn't seem to be very interesting.
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/EA/MENDELEEVann.HTML
A draft:
(http://images-of-elements.com/l/draft.jpg)
As first presented:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Mendelejevs_periodiska_system_1871.png)
Another problem might be that the history of Chemistry, it basically sprang forth as a more scientific version of Alchemy, but the transition is quite gradual because in addition to trying to transmute elements and such the Alchemists also got quite a few things right. So I fear that if you go further back, you'll get a book that is half revolutionary chemistry science discovery and half pseudoscientific occult magickal bullshit ...
The book that was stolen out of my car a few weeks ago, that I can't seem to replace no matter how hard I try, talks about exactly that.
Sigh.
Someone stole a BOOK? Huh. When my van was broken into they crawled right over a ton of books of various kinds to get to the Nintendo DS looking handheld computer, and other similar gear. And half of my microbiology lab equipment. But not one single book.
You must of had a more intelligent class of criminal.