"The answer"? Not sure what part of Feynman's interview response you're alluding to or what exactly "the question" was, but the best you personally can say is that you have "an answer", and one which may or may not be true, and which is both unfalsifiable and unprovable. Commenting all over the Sift like you know "the answer" and as if the rest of us are too stupid to just accept it is why people call you arrogant, FYI.>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it.

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.

I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.

It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.

Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.

If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it.

This is actually sorta a dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Feynman-Human-gods-are-too-provincial, but the one above is longer.

Just had a deep psychological revelation: Feynman = Mr. Rogers for grown ups.

I'm gonna walk around my apartment in a daze thinking on that for a little while...

Your video, Richard Feynman on God, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This is why to me Richard Feynman and Neil degrasse Tyson are excellent role models.

@offsetSammy (I'm a physicist.):

Basically what @GlasWolf said. There are in principle an infinite number of things that can happen between the input and the output (you may for instance always add an extra self-energy term as shown in the video at 5:30 onwards), but usually only a few of all these infinite possible processes make up most of the total process.

To understand what I mean by that, it's important to remember that we are talking about quantum physics here. When we say that the different subprocesses have different probabilities, we don't mean that the particles choose (with a certain probaility) one of the possible Feynman diagrams to follow. No, in fact all the possible diagrams are followed at the same time. But the fact that some of the diagrams are more likely than others means that they are weigthed more heavily in the calculations. All the diagrams that contribute a tiny part to the total process can therefore be ignored, making the calculation much easier. And if your calculations turn out incorrect, you can simply add a few extra diagrams and try again.

This is also related to why the Feynman diagrams at first were met with scepticism by the physics community. Particles behave according to quantum mechanics, and don't go along straight lines as in the diagrams. But it turns out that they are very useful for translating the inherently counter-intuitive quantum physics into a language that is easier for the human brain to understand. They were therefore accepted as a very valuable tool, even though they are technically unphysical.

One of the best things about Feynman was his ability to explain stuff to ordinary people. So, here he is explaining stuff to other physicists in a way THEY can understand. That's a Boss.

>> ^offsetSammy:

Here's something I have never understood about Feynman diagrams, and I hope someone can explain it to me.
A Feynman diagram represents one possible way that two particles can interact, and from a single diagram you can work out the probability of that event occuring. But wouldn't there be an infinite number of ways an interaction could play out, and therefore an infinite number of diagrams? How do you know which one to draw?


It depends exactly what you mean. For an electron-positron annihilation/scatter, there are a couple of basic diagrams as he showed in the film. These are called "second order diagrams", indicating that there are two vertices. You can add in extra loops and vertices in the middle of the diagram to create third, fourth etc. orders, but each one contributes a very quickly decreasing amount towards the whole picture. I'm no physicist, but I think after the fourth or fifth order they're pretty much just ignored.

If you mean there are an infinite number of "things that can happen" for each input, then no; it's very limited by the rules of the diagram (mostly based around conservation rules - charge, momentum etc.). Drawing out the diagram, twisting it around and swapping the joins and vertices is a very good way of determining what the possible outcomes are.

Here's something I have never understood about Feynman diagrams, and I hope someone can explain it to me.

A Feynman diagram represents one possible way that two particles can interact, and from a single diagram you can work out the probability of that event occuring. But wouldn't there be an infinite number of ways an interaction could play out, and therefore an infinite number of diagrams? How do you know which one to draw?

Your video, Quantum Field Theory Made Easy! - Feynman Diagrams, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Being a nerd but not a scientist, i've read about how awesome Feynman Diagrams are but this is the first time i've understood them!

The smart folks at energyfromthorium fackbook group are owed all the credit! In the end, the history of the bomb might undermine my own new goal of the advancement of nuclear energy, so perhaps I am not doing myself any favors...doh!
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Glad to see this made it up. Good find.

Glad to see this made it up. Good find.