"The adventure of our science of physics is a perpetual attempt to recognize that the different aspects of nature are really different aspects of the same thing" -- Richard Feynman
Source:Amazon.com Richard Feynman: Cover of The Feynman Lectures on Physics See also: The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Hi Plato,
ReplyDeleteYes Feynman, another of which I’m familiar. His mind and spirit would serve to be in contrast to that of Einstein, as he was driven to make substance of which he thought there was none as for him or others; while Einstein gave substance not to things, yet to reality itself. Feynman would make drawings of interactions on one hand and would proclaim on the other hand the following:
“One might still like to ask: “How does it work? What is the machinery behind the law?” No one has found any machinery behind the law. No one can “explain” any more than we have just “explained” . No one will give you a deeper representation of the situation. We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced.”
Feynman was prepared to admit that there was a point where the veil of nature would not allow any to go further and at the same time would say that such a veil had no explanation or reason. On the other hand Einstein would insist as follows:
“Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing’s fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. “
My view of this was that those of Feynman’s type although clever to recognize the patterns and shapes and propose connections with reality to them, were as the prisoners in the cave, adapt and acute of the shadows, while such as Einstein knew these to be simply shadows that imprisoned not only thought, yet worse the spirit of the ones who held such; and though he stumbled and looked ridiculous when making explanation of their shadows, it is only that he appeared so for he had seen the light and could give them no explanation that they could understand.
Best,
Phil
Einstein Quote(source?)“Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing’s fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. “
ReplyDeleteAs I had commented over at Bee's about the "mind mapping of her assessment of Theories Hypothesis and models," it was important to me that such mapping be illustrative of this direct connection to what becomes part of the "probabilities" (When is a Pipe a Pipe?) as we move deeper into the collective memory of all souls. This is the "fifth dimensional reality of information" that I am applying to probabilities, yet, the consistency is to have the "remnant of our own soul" retaining this direct connection "in the pool of the unconscious as if" a professor walking across the room.
Phil:My view of this was that those of Feynman’s type although clever to recognize the patterns and shapes and propose connections with reality to them, were as the prisoners in the cave, adapt and acute of the shadows,
There is no doubt in my mind that what was there in nature was the struggle for a greater meaning to Feynman as it was to Dirac and of the types you mention.
I would also point out that this extension of the self to explore and retain contact with nature, was like "sending the mind to become part of the underlying laws," as it was to look at the mathematics and develop this consistency and interpretation about nature.
As "developing scientists"( aspiring in the job description) how could we not expect this of any quest to understand nature that we recognize it's patterns?
But of course I tend to agree with you more on what Einstein realized of the source. I can accept probabilities, knowing that from this unconscious reservoir of knowledge, how "seemingly detached," there is a thread that runs through it all. IN observant of "who that is" is always the underlying question of "who is it that is observing."
Even in those states, you learn to see the predictability of the soul in it's quest, to set aright all those things that had come home to roost, and, before it applicability to the destined course in life(causality), the ability to rearrange our priorities according to what will transpire in that waking reality.
Hi Plato,
ReplyDeletePlato Said: “Einstein Quote(source?)”
“Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing’s fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. “
[The Fundaments of Theorectical Physics, Science, Washington, D.C., May 24, 1940]
Best,
Phil
Hi Plato,
ReplyDelete"The adventure of our science of physics is a perpetual attempt to recognize that the different aspects of nature are really different aspects of the same thing" -- Richard Feynman
There exists in this statement the key to Feynman’s problem, which is he considers everything that is found in reality to be resultant of “one” thing and of “one” thing. At the metaphysical level this is a singular ontology. For me it has always been clear that anything that manifets to result in action and process is necessitated to be resultant of at least two things. Some called in “yin” and “yang” others “truth” and “beauty” still others “space-time” and “energy/matter”. David Bohm for instance would have called it “particle” and “wave”. The problem is Feynman and those like him would say it is only “wave” or others only “information”. My question to them is waves waving what? Also, information informing of what? So for many the shadows still exist to be real without need for the light that defines both their shape and limit and despite it only being an outline of what it defines. I then shake my head and ask; how can such men of obvious power of mind and ability be so blind?
Best,
Phil
Phil:There exists in this statement the key to Feynman’s problem, which is he considers everything that is found in reality to be resultant of “one” thing and of “one” thing. At the metaphysical level this is a singular ontology.
ReplyDeleteI think Feynman was trying to find a way to be consistent with how he would interpret the interactions. So in that sense, and from the quote I thought may be he implied, "his toy models served to help him itemize the aspects of those same interactions." He would look at this process differently now that he could say, that this interaction is result for the relationship of this and that.
Also, in respect of the way you are seeing, Richard Feynman also has his counterpart in Murray Gellman.
Murray Gellman:The name that I propose for our subject is "plectics," derived, like mathematics, ethics, politics, economics, and so on, from the Greek. Since plektos with no prefix comes from *plek- , but without any commitment to the notion of "once" as in "simple" or to the notion of "together" as in "complex," the derived word "plectics" can cover both simplicity and complexity.
It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.
Phil:how can such men of obvious power of mind and ability be so blind?
ReplyDeleteYou pointed out to me that even Plato was himself in the shadows?:)
The point is, "this struggle is not without it's challenges." It will force upon all us, as we are the same in this interpretation, yet, there will be the determinant and the indeterminant. How shall this subject be governed?
So while one can think of the "finer aspects of reality," what saids that this connection does not exist at levels(current reality) we are not currently aware of?
For some the "I ching" is an example of the probabilities of outcome, yet to me, it was not understood the deeper connectin this has, and the "intricacies of the pattern" that lies at it's basis.
So while you show the Yin yang symbolism and interconnectivesness as this "continuity of expression," there is a deeper "resonance of being" that is schematically written in it's directions. It's relationships in the "order of the family." The outcome of the directions. Of heaven and earth, the mountains and it's plains.
The "counterparts" that meet up have their effect.:)