Descriptions:
http://www.ted.com What’s it like to be pals with a genius? Onstage at TEDxCaltech, physicist Leonard Susskind spins a few …
http://www.ted.com What’s it like to be pals with a genius? Onstage at TEDxCaltech, physicist Leonard Susskind spins a few …
I can't sometimes decide between listening to Feynman and listening about Feynman (kudos to Dr. Susskind obviously) so I just keep coming back to both.
You have to apologize for "sexist" whatever when relating a story from long ago? We really have corrupted almost every form of communication when you have to filter an old story to fit some silly present madness. We are lost.
my friend Feynman, theoretical minimum by… Suskind. This talentless nit is trying to suck up to as many really famous and worthy people
May God bless you sir
He was cheerful! We’d wish havin’ such friends!
Sus kind
He is sus
We are all showmen, he just was a very good showman.
kinda sus bro
Hol-up is that a whiskey bottle next to Susskind's legs?
3:32
Leonard is the Rodney Dangerfield of physics.
This is made obvious in the documentaries on Hawking.
AMAZING
Leonard what kind????
Can someone explain the Bologna thing?
I’m rarely a fan of standing ovations but I’ll be goddamned if he didn’t deserve one.
또 생리가 시작할라고 해
배도 아프고 졸다깼는데 아빠왔어
밥먹구 운동가자해 개천가
What if it's 1 huge particle…disintegrating over time
To be fair to "philosophers of mind," this must have been after some philosophers, such as Peirce and Nietzsche were pretty much on the right track but before their ideas were confirmed scientifically by cognitive scientists such as Lakoff and Fillmore, during a bad time when Chomsky's cult of personality effectively suppressed most good cognition about cognition. This was also a very bad period in philosophy of science, such as Kuhn and Feyerabend, and figures like Newton-Smith were too obscure to have much effect on the mainstream. Since then, a modest but not radical rejection of Aristotelian and Cartesian classical concepts has made things a lot better.
There's no solution to the jargon problem, though, because wrong ideas are embedded in ordinary language used to describe the mind. Cognitive science has shown scientifically why and how this happens, but it doesn't suggest a solution as far as I can tell, other than make up confusing words to get brains to slow down a bit and not presume so much. In Feynman's terms (almost), reality doesn't come with instructions. I wonder what Feynman could have come up with if he hadn't been poisoned about this stuff because of a bad academic period. I still love how Feynman used the word "lumps" instead of "particles" or "corpuscles" (Newton) or neologisms like "wavicles." "Lump" is good. I often describe this stuff in fields as like tapioca pudding. It's lumpy and smooth. It seems to work both with GR and QED, at least on people with not enough college intro physics to have become poisoned.
Would've loved to hear the stories he cut for time
Self-mythologizing bromance on steroids.
I would love to know how Feynman burst the baloons of the consciousness philosophers. Is there any talk of Feynaman pertaining to the topic of mind and consciousness?
Man, if only he knew how many of use ar literally on the edges of our seats at this.
Anyone wanting or needing to leave at 15 would, the rest of us, we'd be there until he stopped talking.
I wish he'd just kept talking until sopmeone stopped him, he certainly wouldv'e been allowed to
The tan cone neurally note because grey gratifyingly wrap underneath a lewd jelly. fine, exciting exclusive circulation
Sounds like him
Why is it sexist to talk about having a good relationship with your father?
How interestingly he talks about his friend ! ❤️?
YOU SMUGLE IRREVERSIBILITY IN WITHOUT DECLARING THE CONTRABAND. It had controlled "ALL THERE" via GRAVITISM.
Over the last decades there have been remarkable developments in thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Yet many of the basic problems have remained largely unsolved. In the spectrum of opinions expressed by authors who have attempted to solve these problems, one can roughly distinguish three main schools of thought:
1) Traditional axiomatic thermodynamics, which cannot explain the origin of irreversibility and time asymmetries.
2) The statistical school, which generates “man-made irreversibility’’ by imposing asymmetric conditions on symmetric ones in order to describe reality.
3) The new gravitational school, which deduces the origin of evolution, irreversibility, electromagnetic and thermodynamics from Einsteinian gravitation and the verified expansion of the universe.
This school includes some new modifications to physics, as part of GRAVITISM.
My object is to obtain a consistent mathematical formulation of irreversibility in probabilistic theories. So far physicists have done this by means of (a priori) imposing on symmetric equations an (often hidden postulate of) asymmetry (which, in itself, is equivalent to the very results that the mathematical analysis is aimed “to prove”). In other words, the (asymmetric) “results” (of classical and quantum-statistical physics) are not really results for they are deliberately enforced on, not deduced from symmetric formalism.
Such tactics are unacceptable, They lead to misleading philosophy of science, which, in turn, has generated a ludicrously incongruous mode of thinking in education and philosophy E.g. when, in 1915, Einstein discovered pre-existing Mercury mathematics-physics, it was not man-made, it was "there" at least since "genesis".
Advocates of man-made irreversibility fall into the trap of assuming that which they set out to prove, and it was already "There". Imposed, man-made mathematics, to fit extant reality, cannot get uncertainty for certainty, nor indeterminism from determinism (see below).* These conclusions lead to somewhat surprising results, which, in turn, are related to the very core of our physical theories and to the role of time, causality, and determinism in philosophy./
??
Is AI advanced enough now to make a learning and teaching eFeynman?
So sad most people just try to honor him instead of honor what he wanted. I may not be even close to him but the simple thing of keeping things simple is what i stand for and every time I can't explain something to somebody who knows nothing about what I am talking about shows me I don't really know what I am talking about. And that is a very simple thing everyone should keep in mind. Important about this for me is I start to think about was I was talking again and again until I can explain it so it is understood.
Right now I feel great since that sounds like something he could have said.
It is people like Einstein, Feynman, Susskind, and many others who tirelessly and fearlessly seek to explain the truth about the world we live in are what makes this world a better place for all of us
Of course you can make a machine that thinks like a human.
They are made every single day, sometimes by accident.
Feynman diaphragm.