Richard Feynman: Fun to Imagine

[amyrose2712]

I'm sure this has been posted here before, but I can watch it over and over. The pure giddiness that comes over him while talking about jiggling atoms and surface tension is contagious. But, try not to ask him "Why?"

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/richard-feynman-fun-to-imagine/

[patrice]

1. What is the difference between "Why?" and "How?" nt

[amyrose2712]

2. Did you watch it?

Because I was just referring to the complete change in demeanor when asked "why magnets repel" Basically, his answer was that you can continually ask why? And without a deeper knowledge of the subject at hand there was nothing he could easily compare it to that the non-physicist could understand. I just thought it was kinda funny.

[patrice]

3. Yes, listened to it twice. I need to do my writing thing before I feel like I got anything

substantial out of it.

It's all stuff I have followed at a distance for years. Taught psychology, so I found some of the topics useful general references for some of the problems in neuro-chemistry/potentiation and in perception.

I have the sense that some of it provides at least an experimental context for questions about the connections between things that are assumed not to be connected.

[patrice]

5. I noticed that his "why" = what would be to me, at least, hows. Personally, I am deeply satisfied

with that perspective.

And, yes, to all practical intents and purposes, there is no end to the questions and no question is too "small". That's all fine with me too, in fact, it's better than some "answers". Unfortunately, some recent examples seem to support the possibility that these facts are hell to some people, apparently because they take an infinity of "answers" as no answer at all.

[amyrose2712]

6. Yea, I suppose I agree with that...

But I like I said, I just thought it was interesting how his entire demeanor shifted.

[patrice]

8. So I watched it, and if you're referring to a shift toward some degree of tension, that

looks like it has to do, initially, with something he probably doesn't have to deal with usually, no theoretical context for the question, and he mentions this problem in referring to how there needs to be some line that is assumed before he knows how to answer the questioner and then he pursues that problem, no perspective from an assumed line of truth, honestly until he tells you that (unlike many people falsely/mistakenly accuse science of), if the answer is supposed to represent knowledge, there is no way to avoid being circular. He says you can't answer the question in terms of anything that is familiar, or what we commonly refer to as "known", because that is using something to prove itself and he is too intellectually honest and not enough of a charlatan to make that claim.

[amyrose2712]

9. Yes, that is what I was referring to..

But, I was simply tickled by the change. I wasn't putting him down, or trying to debate or make point about it. I just thought is was interesting. I wasn't attempting to imply anything negative.

[patrice]

10. I didn't think you were & it is a good thing to note the humble honesty of this brilliant man, so

Thank you for pointing this out.

:hi:

[progressoid]

4. "I could never carry a tune. I lose a great deal of pleasure out of that"

Oh, I dunno. He seems to have found some pleasure in music.

[AlecBGreen]

7. +1

"The pure giddiness that comes over him while talking about jiggling atoms and surface tension is contagious"

He said he could talk about this stuff forever. I could listen forever :) thanks for sharing!