A closer look into Picasso's "what is" and "what could be"

“Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not.” (Pablo Picasso)

My paper was to explore this distinction in reference to two areas of knowledge: Natural Sciences and Applied Mathematics.

I decomposed Picasso’s quote into two parts: “what is” and “what could be”. The former describes the physical world, where we can sense/feel the existence in nature, while the latter describes the non-existent, where we imagine what could exist in the physical world. My paper recognizes the individuality and interdependencies of the processes of imagination and observation/sense-perception. Through Figure 1, I have formulated how imagination influences sense-perception through personal and shared knowledge, while directly influencing the knowledge domains. This aims to show how Picasso’s “why not” is only possible because others have asked “why”.

The conduit of the analogous flow in this figure represents our use of language in the pursuit and sharing of knowledge. My depiction of this distinction allows for answering the paper’s central knowledge question: “To what extent do the processes of observation and imagination operate independently in the pursuit of knowledge?” Two perspectives will emerge in this paper through analyzing real-life examples: 1. Observation in the scientific method helps individuals develop knowledge about the physical world and natural laws. 2. Imagination in applied mathematics aids in conceptualizing ideas that shape the direction of the pursuit of knowledge. We also look at an example that demonstrates how knowledge of what exists helps imagine the implementation of the ‘beyond observables’, which in turn shapes our pursuit of “what is”. However, there is a flaw in the figure, where the power of public authority is misrepresented. Knowledge is only as free-flowing as the public allows, which is further discussed later.

Considering the process of observation in the natural sciences, the sequence presented in Figure 1 helps us understand how humans observe the physical world to develop knowledge of natural laws governing matter. Theories are thereby developed on the foundations of these natural laws. The scientific method requires us to systematically analyze our perceptions/observations of the natural world to eliminate erroneous presuppositions. Empirical testing ensures correctness, for example through my experimentation with surface area to volume (SA:V) ratios, I verified that the larger the SA:V ratio is, the more liquid is diffused into the cube. This, in turn, supports our observations of “what is”, where humans are multicellular and cells divide to maintain a high SA:V ratio, to support processes such as gas exchange in the lungs. We observed here that empirical knowledge obtained in a closed-off environment (agar cubes) enriched our understanding of more holistic environments (human biology). Sense-perception’s role in adding to our personal and shared knowledge, while being directed by inquiry from our shared knowledge is demonstrated in this example.

In applied mathematics, imagination is involved in applying our mathematical knowledge to the physical world. Innovation thereby arises where we implement the ‘beyond observables’ into the physical world by bringing the personal into the shared. Imagination is what projects the ‘beyond observables’ into our shared knowledge of “what could be”. We see this in the following project, where I designed a can crusher to increase recyclable surface area (creative thought to improve society). The solution was to crush the can laterally rather than from disc to disc, which is a challenging problem (beyond observable). It required imagination to engineer the solution, where the key was to leverage structural attributes (arcs attached to the top and bottom crushing face). It was through my personal knowledge of the forces required and shared knowledge of the structural impact of shapes, that I designed the solution. This solution was shared, which contributed to the shared knowledge of can crushers. It was questioning why something is done a certain way – what is – that motivated me to consider why it could not be done differently for optimization – why not. Returning to Figure 1, we can see how imagination operates independently in shaping our shared knowledge and using our personal knowledge.

Now that we understand the role of observation and imagination in attaining knowledge, the dependencies between the two can be explained in Figure 1. Imagination shapes “what could be” in our shared knowledge, which guides our inquiry into nature’s guiding laws and our construction of new theories. Empirical testing conducted by scientists adds to our knowledge of the physical world, providing us with verified principles to be used in solving problems. This process is cyclical. I observed this connection when comparing my biology and engineering classes, where concentration gradients, vital in living organisms, are also used to increase the efficiency of battery cells. I conducted a lab, where I observed if water concentration is higher outside cells, it would diffuse inside, causing the blood cells to burst. Meanwhile, in engineering, I noticed that increasing the concentration gradient from the positive end to a negative end in the chemical reaction increases efficiency due to higher energy flow. Engineers use nature’s principles, proven true, in order to optimize existing technology, like batteries. Engineers imagined a better solution and made it tangible by utilizing scientific principles. The realization of this connection between sense-perception and imagination allows us to organize which processes require which ways of knowings, and how they are dependant.

My thesis/diagram faces problems in the real world, however. It fails to recognize the authority of the public domain. Our shared knowledge – represented in the public domain – can inhibit the imagination of individuals, if their ideas/innovations do not correlate with what is experimentally proven. We have seen it happen through funding being cut, “alternative” projects not gaining popularity, etcetera. Despite imagination being responsible for projecting future innovations, it remains dependent on theories previously proven true. For example, when Einstein attempted to establish the theory of relativity, few accepted it since it contradicted the widely accepted concept of aether filling up space. This dominant concept was flawed though as it was not empirically proven, yet remained accepted due to its popularity in public. Einstein proposed his theory, where laws of gravity are the same for all non-accelerating observers. When this was later proven experimentally through the difference in time between two atomic clocks on a plane and on Earth, the cycle between imagination and sense-perception continued If theories are rejected without rationally explaining why, the flow between imagination and sense perception is interrupted, as new findings do not get added to our library of empirically tested solutions, which fuels imagination.

Responding to our central KQ: “To what extent do the processes of observation and imagination operate independently in the pursuit of knowledge?”, this post demonstrates that imagination and observation cooperate cyclically where they have independent relations to personal and shared knowledge. The two depend on each other through knowledge domains only. Individuals require empirical testing of theories to imagine with their personal knowledge. Meanwhile, the public’s inquiry into natural laws is fuelled by other’s imagination. In reference to the title, while ‘why not’ has a bigger span than ‘why’ as one imagines what is unobservable, and ‘why’ is more concrete than ‘why not’ where our observations are proven true unlike imagination, both are vital to make progress. This organization of how we derive new knowledge shows us the observational and imaginative pieces required for innovation.

P.S.

this was a paper written a few years ago by a much younger me… in hindsight, I would explain how I derived the distinction in the quote.

I interpret this quote from the perspective: There are many who are very dialed in on inquiring about what is, while Picasso was exploring what could be when we create. Picasso was an artist during the modernism movement, where many were trying to explore, and detach from “isolated” rationalism and religion. So it makes sense why Picasso mentions his exploration of the what could be. This paper gives value to both what is and what could be, in order to see how both these processes operate independently and simultaneously (ideally a positive feedback loop).