TED Talk-Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman

I decided when I was asked to do this that what I really wanted to talk about was my friend Richard Feynman. I was one of the fortunate few that really did get to know him and enjoyed his presence. And I'm going to tell you the Richard Feynman that I knew. I'm sure there are other people here who could tell you about the Richard Feynman they knew, and it would probably be a different Richard Feynman.

Richard Feynman was a very complex man. He was a man of many, many parts. He was, of course, foremost a very, very, very great scientist. He was an actor. You saw him act. I also had the good fortune to be in those lectures, up in the balcony. They were fantastic. He was a philosopher; he was a drum player; he was a teacher par excellence. Richard Feynman was also a showman, an enormous showman. He was brash, irreverent -- he was full of macho, a kind of macho one-upsmanship. He loved intellectual battle. He had a gargantuan ego. But the man had somehow a lot of room at the bottom. And what I mean by that is a lot of room, in my case -- I can't speak for anybody else -- but in my case, a lot of room for another big ego. Well, not as big as his, but fairly big. I always felt good with Dick Feynman.

See Also: Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman

***

At 9:16 AM, June 01, 2011,  Plato said

Listening to this talk with regard to Susskind's opinion about his friend Dick, he too would have thought about, "irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." Albert Einstein


Pure thought(what does this linguistic representation actually mean) would have to lead you there and be most understandable as to leaving no doubt as to what has been derived.


I have often wondered where Feynman actually deduced his diagrams from and for me I think seeing how Dirac worked, this was suffice to me to actually see how "i" in for matrices was derived.


This again is my opinion. I am searching for answers.


For me it was about where one set them self in terms of their observation of the place "this simplicity" might have been realized.


Coxeter might have said circle when looking at a round table from above, while standing to the side, he would say ellipse

***

At 10:10 AM, June 03, 2011,  Plato said...

Nothing worse then having to quote oneself in order to press the point. Carry on with life indeed as if nothing missed.:)

Pure thought(what does this linguistic representation actually mean) would have to lead you there and be most understandable as to leaving no doubt as to what has been derived.

Algorithmically, the HTML language is representative of the order in which we might represent an idea....as is done mathematically...that it is conceptually enriched(put a cloud around it) that by such representation it would include historical understandings. These encapsulated by that rhetorical past is "inclusive."

You just take that for granted/assumption as long as the interpretation actually speaks to the historical development and proceeds forward toward an phenomenological order.

Most had to go through the historical development in order to understand where we are today. For the layman in my "seeing choice of method of production" toward falsifying, the choice of structure of phenomenological order is displayed as to demonstrate the thinking's involved scientifically that demonstrates the logic of approach toward a culmination of models of apprehension.

This display's the approach for myself. Might it be an example then of the whole development toward phenomenological order?

Best,