Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower




This video is from 1981. The interview is also the subject of Feynman’s book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s…

source

Your reaction?
Angry Angry
0
Angry
Cute Cute
0
Cute
Fail Fail
0
Fail
Geeky Geeky
0
Geeky
Lol Lol
0
Lol
Love Love
0
Love
OMG OMG
0
OMG
Win Win
0
Win
WTF WTF
0
WTF

Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower

Comments 27

  1. Your comment is so on point. The amount of times ive debated with people who believe that the beauty of the world can only be explained by the supernatural. They simply didnt pay attention in science class. Theres no way you can understand quantum mechanics and not see it as beauty and poetry in motion. Uneducated people have no clue.

  2. LOVE this clip 🙂 I'm so tired of some people trying to claim that science 'isn't poetic' or that it takes the poetry/beauty OUT of things…..

    Feynman demolishes those presumptions here 🙂 beautiful

  3. Like someone said, why is the most annoying question in the universe. Why do we want to predict the world? Why should we even use science? Why would we ever want to describe the world with induction?

  4. well, for example, there is a religion that says time does not exist. It acknowledges that time is a construct used to measure things that are immeasurable for the purpose of giving humanity comfort of order, but it distorts our perception of the truth. I think if we're talking about things that describe the world, first you have to realize your description of religion is too narrow, and second, realize that "feeling good" and trying to predict the world are both aiming for the same thing.

  5. 1) philosophy =/= religion
    2) You can definitely apply one to another. In fact, I'd say that one has a larger scope than the other. Even religious scholars can't even truly agree on what religion is, but it is definitely a much wider thing than you seem to think it is. We aren't talking institutionalized religion at all.
    3) To be able to make the claim that they do not overlap and cannot apply, you should qualify it. All you did was say what physics was concerned with, and then say phil=phil.

  6. at any rate, what i truly want to say boils down to this:
    there is no such thing as science vs religion as operating worldviews.
    perhaps institutionally they may butt heads, but an individual
    participating in studying both will usually find them complementary.
    The search for an objective understanding,
    is subjective in its endeavor. You really can't say anything like,
    physics > religion, etc. The fact that you still wear clothes is indicative
    of religious resonance playing into society.

  7. like you said, it takes experiment and
    the search for appropriate mathematical formalism, both of which
    rely on induction trumping other means of "reasoning," but under what basis?
    for instance, a = a and b = b in Math. why? Does math reflect nature? Or does nature act according to math?
    Science barely addresses the question of why when it comes to fundamentalism and universe origins. And I don't see any logical reason why physics is more viable
    than any other operating worldview.

  8. i never knew being too abstract meant that my argument was suddenly invalid. Why should I keep my philosophy out of physics? Now you're just being silly. I do agree with the Galileo thing, but saying physics is the best candidate for an accurate description of the way the universe operates is definitely not a viable statement.

  9. how can you say that when the issue of a passive observer is very relevant to the discrepancy between objectivity/subjectivity? I do agree that consciousness isn't the cause of the wave function collapse but i dare say that finding out whether a passive observer "exists" indicative of some sort of objectivity

  10. Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. Does this make any logical sense to you? If it does, something needs to be called into question.

  11. Induction limits nature in that you will only be studying nature under the lens that what you observe and what you can test is what is. There is no logical basis to say that induction by itself is a valid way of observing the world. There is indeed a contrast between the assumptions required to study science, but to STUDY religion you do not need to assume anything in particular. To BELIEVE in religion is something different. Do not mistake the two.

  12. Eastern cultures nowadays are western mostly – when I said hinduism has god i misspoke. They do have gods, but hinduists do not concern themselves with creation stories at all. Gods in hinduism die, which is why i put "god" in quotes (since they are not the same as our conception of god), which is also why "God" with a capital G is emphasized. You didn't read what I read right. I'll speak to the logic part later

  13. It isn't EXACTLY like studying religion, i'll admit and retract that because i misspoke – but the two are similar in their search for truth and explanation. One who studies religion (being all religions and not just one that he/she believes in) is searching for explanation and truth of how the world is – and bringing that back to the self. With the development of quantum physics, passive observer/measurement problems, we also see a sort of connection between science's search for objectivity

  14. are you being real? Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoist conception of god is NOTHING like the western conception of god. God, being the one that we consider omnipotent, IS a western conception. In Hinduism and Buddhism, gods are not immortal. They die like humans, which establishes a lot of their philosophy. Read the story of Buddha again. You're the ignorant one this time, sorry buddy.

  15. Also, how does the assumption that induction holds, limit nature?! That makes no sense at all. There is a marked contrast between the assumptions required to study religion within its philosophical context and science.

  16. The assumption that induction holds is not a leap of faith that is at all analogous to the leap of faith required for an assumption that religion true (or real). Science requires empirical evidence that is independently verifiable, religion requires no such thing. If it were ever shown that induction does not hold at all, then science would have to abandon it. Furthermore science is falsifiable, religious ideas for the most part are not, especially since there is a habit of goal post moving.

  17. Er … the fact that you think Hinduism has no god, and the fact that you think Eastern cultures don't have creation stories is a prime example of your ignorance. What exactly is a fundamental systemic "logistical" system? Logistics refers to "the detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities, or supplies" – If you are going to use unnecessarily superfluous language, at least learn what the words mean!

  18. texts, and the world under the context of this philosophy, applying it to everyday life and the theoretical, testing the philosophy and furthering development of the self in search for an objective truth – almost all of the previous things stated are parallel to scientific endeavors, which are in place to try to find a "truth" or "truths," and a way of understanding the world. Don't tell me i'm ignorant, especially when you haven't even provided a way for me to relate to your knowledge.

  19. As to studying science being similar to studying religion – yes, they are not EXACTLY translatable. However, the fact of the matter is both rely on fundamental systemic "logistical" systems that require a "leap of faith," in that logic has no logical basis, etc. When you study science, you're assuming induction is real/workable, and therefore limiting nature – the same is of religion when you undertake the fundamental assumptions of its operating philosophy. To study religion, is to study the

  20. i'd appreciate it if 1) you did some research and 2) you provided logical backup to your claims. It makes arguing much easier. The God thing is a western conception – India, China, Tibet, Japan and the like do not concern themselves with creation stories and "gods" in those areas (at least back when religion was more prominent) obeyed similar mortality rules to humans (similar to Greek Mythology except they weren;t immortal). The easiest examples are Buddhism/Hinduism/Daoism, which have no "God"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

log in

Become a part of our community!

reset password

Back to
log in