I wanna do a quote from him:

"I have a friend who's an artist and he's sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say, 'Look how beautiful it is,' and I'll agree, I think. And he says, 'You see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you, as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.

And I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too,I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is; but I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time I see much more about the flower that he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty.

Also, the processes, the fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting - it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: Does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which shows that a scientific knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds; I don't understand how it can subtract."

This applies to art vs. science, religion vs. science, basically anything vs. science. Science only adds.

i really like feynman, he is a natural teacher.
his approach to problems is not new but he has such a relaxed and easy way to help teach others how to perceive things differently in order to find a solution.

Thank you so much for posting this. Somewhere in my brain there was a neuron with Richard Feynmans name on it, yet i knew nothing of the man until i, literally, stumbled across your post. Whilst showing my ignorance, it also shows the the beauty and benefits of the net. Thanks again.

Feynman with a theme melody! Could it get any better? No: *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Haldaug.

This is seriously a great upload, ta

Funny how he talks about the forefront of science in part 3, and mentions all the unsolved problems at the time of filming. All the problems he mentioned have since been solved, and it turns out reality is simpler than what he describes here, just like he predicted. For instance, we now know that there are 6 different quarks (plus the antiquarks) instead of 3, and that this simplifies the equations greatly.

The LHC is right now investigating the possibility of another property of physics called super symmetry, which if true would double the number of particles we know of. One or more of these new particles might turn out to be what the mysterious dark matter that makes up most of the material universe is composed of. These are exciting times indeed.

Here's Feynman doing the quote
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Feynman-Ode-on-a-Flower

>> ^Ornthoron:

Funny how he talks about the forefront of science in part 3, and mentions all the unsolved problems at the time of filming. All the problems he mentioned have since been solved, and it turns out reality is simpler than what he describes here, just like he predicted. For instance, we now know that there are 6 different quarks (plus the antiquarks) instead of 3, and that this simplifies the equations greatly.
The LHC is right now investigating the possibility of another property of physics called super symmetry, which if true would double the number of particles we know of. One or more of these new particles might turn out to be what the mysterious dark matter that makes up most of the material universe is composed of. These are exciting times indeed.


I like the part where they discuss (also at the end of part 3) that the very laws themselves are stated without history. That, perhaps, at different times, or even different places in the universe, the laws are mutable. That the rules that most fundamental rules of the universe might always be in flux to some degree. If that be the case, it makes the investigation into this very "monad" centric science difficult.

It would also mean that we could find these laws of the universe, but we would never understand the meta rules that govern them. It would place a logical end point on empirical investigation.