Feynman is Everything Wrong With Modern Physics 

The ceiling fan looks threatening. Apart from that, the video is fun

You're misunderstanding Feynman. Of course the remarks in his lecture are oversimplified since he's speaking to a popular audience, but still he does a great job getting across the process of doing physics.

Your guest's name is Aviram Rosochotsky. You haven't included it in either the title or in the description.

Einstein was thinking about non-Euclidean geometry, having that in his toolbox was a pre-requisite for thinking about light bending.

14:14 maxwells’ equations 2, 3 and 4 can be deduced from just equation 1 (the electric field) and special relativity

Haven't watch the video yet but comment section is fucking nuts.

Feynman excluded explanations from his model, just because he didn't get annoyed by people asking him about his subjective procedures to get those mathematical constructs ... Assertively, He believed that trying to explain them through Natural Language words would derail the mathematical framework established. Perhaps, with a few, who he felt trusted about not misinterpret his cognitive mechanism to arrive at those mathematical constructs, he was open to 'use analogical descriptions through natural language' with them ... but to stay quiet to the masses and prevent overthinking about the meaning of the diagrams and the equations, He denoised the implementation and consolidation of his theoretical paradigm ... ... just denoising the mathematical construct/relationships from human's subjective chaos ... ... What's wrong with that ?? ... ... 'Humans Natural Languages' are limited by Human Perception data incomes, those languages fall into unsolvable paradoxes when/where you are trying to deal with stuff out of the perceptual range of the species... If you are a philosopher, you should understand why Feynman took that stance about those mathematical discernments. The 'wise' Jedis don't have to kill the 'evil' Sith' ... Maybe, The 'wise Jedis' are working for the emperor.

Nifty. I always had a Feynman-esque attitude about philosophy in general too for roughly the 1st half of my life so far. But there is little Q that science & philosophy can both inspire each other, & pretty much always have, regardless of the "division" that occured in academia since the renaissance/enlightenment. David Albert recently said something interesting on Brian Keating's channel that I totally agree with, which was being a fan of division of labor. That is to say, Its fine for people to be interested in only one or the other or even both. What's NOT OK is having hostility towards your non-preference. Arguing over importance is silly. We need both, & that's all there is to it. EDIT: They also discussed Eisenstein/Maxwewell/Bore & the Popper take & all. "Foundations" ought to be the hot topic that it is IMO.

15:54 “derive relativity from maxwells” - i don’t think so. i think maybe: special relativity must be deduced just from noticing that there is no absolute location or speed [galileo]. and that the speed of light is constant for all observers at an inertial frame of reference. [michaelson morely].

This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentiation of what Feynman is saying, f.i. at 5:35 he's not talking about quantum mechanics, he says that speculation about what is going on in a scattering process is speculative and as good as any other. He's teaching physics here, not philosophy.

To me there is nothing wrong the way they drive physics today, it is like driving a car as long you know what are you doing. But if you want to understand how a car works you don't just drive it you have to go really deep into getting knowledge. That's what physicist are not looking for, they are just happily enjoying the ride.

12:28 You say Special Relativity obviously doesn't have a causal structure. That's not obvious because it's not even clear what you mean by "causal structure" and by "SR doesn't have causal structure".

This back and forth sounds a lot like Turok.

Excellent video and well-made points! The deification of mathematics has led physics down a rabbit hole of meaningless and speculative nonsense. I for one have never liked Feynman’s lectures, they always gave me the impression that he didn’t seem to care for physical explanations and only wanted to show off his mathematical prowess.

1:21:50 This point is SUPER important. The physically (What are the components of [action] in the theory do we detect in the physical world, and which parts are theoretical probabilistic or statistical buffers that are not measured in the physical world). Good point.

1:13:39 no, man! Particles and waves are a dialectic! When a molecule of water is on the surface of a "wave," it literally "composes" the "phenomenon" of the "wave"! It's similar with photons! Photons are just energized spacetime itself! That's why they "cancel each other out"! They "cancel" each other into "spacetime"!

By some strange coincidence I just read Feynman's book this past weekend. Transcribed from his lectures at MIT it was described as an introductory course for non-science majors at MIT, which immediately struck me as an oxymoron. But I kept reading because I was a non-science major too and thought this would be way over my pay grade. In fact these lectures are on their face eminently understandable. I believe these lectures become the orthodox understanding of Physics at that time, late 1940's, early 1950's. The chemistry of nuclear physics required a mathematical model based on observed phenomenon. By the time I was in high school in the late 1960's this kind of thinking became axiomatic. Being intensely interested in science and bad at math, I went for the social sciences, which required mostly statistics, boring but doable, because I didn't think I could hack the math. This dance between observation and calculation appears to me as a completely rational AND emotionally satisfying resolution.

It's not difficult. Produce some useful work that demonstrates phsyics is wrong, gives us something we didn't have before and get it peer reviewed. I get the feeling Terryology is your area of experise.

How should I go about learning about modern physics as a Philosophy student?

In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology. It makes sense to use all of the tools in the toolbox. "Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories, for example.

The speaker on the left is James Ellias, a self-described "Math, Physics, Philosophy and Writing Tutor," who in 2015 claimed (on LinkedIn) that his Inductica project would 1. Discover new principles of physics. 2. Use new theories and discoveries to produce new technologies for profit. But so far all this project seems to have produced is some videos, including this one dissing a well-known physicist who in fact discovered new principles of physics (for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize) and helped produce new technologies (nanotechnology, quantum computing).

"The purpose of scientific knowledge is to understand cause and effect relationships." Hmm, who told you that, Ayn Rand? Considering how problematic causality is in quantum physics and relativistic physics, that puts you on the losing side of an argument that was settled a century ago. The mathematics that best describes the world at quantum scale is probabilistic. Beliefs that there's some hidden local causal reality beneath the probabilities (called "realism) have been shown to be false, and many of the paradoxical predictions of quantum theory have been experimentally observed. So, if your basic assumptions about cause and effect don't stand up, but the mathematics does, it's sensible to consider the mathematics the more correct description. This is deeply counter-intuitive, but show me the signed contract that was handed to us at birth promising that the world would conform to our intuitions.

You can think of the potentials of numbers and spaces lesbian the effects of a Continuum becoming quantized or where order is imposing itself upon chaos and becoming probability

So what's pushing the soda then after the atmosphere removes because I thought it was weightless then gravity would be holding it in the cup still. So what is I'm sucking the air into your mouth then if you expel all the air out of your lungs

I think this is all a bout of tall-poppy syndrome. One thought though: Thinking of post-quantum-revolution physics in terms of "entities acting on other entities" is definitely the wrong way to look at physics. Feynman knew as much. The quantum field is a seamless physical variable, not uniquely or unambiguously defined, which produces the potentialities of **events** happening. Causality being an attribute of pairs of events. In his heart of hearts Feynman was, I think, Newtonian in this sense: He created mathematical tools and put them to good use while contriving no **unnecessary** conceptual hypothesis.

Maybe 'least action' and 'conservation of energy' has a reference frame maybe CMB, quantum foam or gravity field. There is something special about a spinning body that produce a perpendicular vector and a plane.

You talking about renormalization

Well, this was fun.

You can translate pragmatism into a material list not understanding the non-physical causes of physics yet including them in his calculations because they are there

I'd be interested on your thoughts on Nelson Goodman's grue paradox. Maybe that's in one of your videos that I haven't seen.

It's a fact that there are a lot of great physicists who've made significant contributions to the field that admire Feynman. Even Murry Gell-Mann who personally dislikes Feynman admires him as a physicist. I don't know of any exceptions. The only people I know of who diss Feynman (and Einstein, and other great physicists) have made no positive contributions to the field.

Reasonable and thought-provoking.

String theory might be true at some level, but it represents only a small piece of a larger set of more fundamental processes at Planck scale. Quantized vortices that form open and closed tubes in a non-viscos fluid can explain the foundational basis of the more emergent oscillating string process. At the fundamental scale, ℎ represents the circumference, ℏ the radius, and 2ℏ the diameter of angular momentum quanta (quantized vortex). The ℏ value is the reduced Planck constant and serves as the relative reduced action-the linear radius reduction of ℎ-as part of an angular motion quanta that will resist another angular motion quanta. Essentially, half of the quanta is moving in the opposite direction of the other half. The diameter 2ℏ provides the linear spatial length, contrasting with the action length ℎ and the relative ℏ reduced action length. When angular motion vortices align, they can form open or closed tubes. The action-based oscillation travel time around the length of the tube is given by ℎ⋅𝑛/𝑐, where the circumference ℎ is the travel length of action, not the spatial length occupied by the angular motion quanta, which is 2ℏ. Therefore, the true length of the open or closed tube is 2ℏ⋅𝑛, while the oscillating action travel time around the loop is ℎ⋅𝑛/𝑐. The relative oscillation travel speed around the loop is inversely proportional to the travel speed of the tube. Hence, the correct action travel time considering this inverse proportionality is ℎ⋅𝑛/(𝑐−𝑠), where 𝑠 is the speed of the tube, and (c-s) is the speed of the oscillation, a relativistic trade off between speed of the loop in one direction effecting speed of a oscillation traversing the loop. Additionally, the tubes exhibit secondary properties: open tubes will orbit each other due to angular action, and closed tubes will move in and out of each other due to angular action. This dynamic interaction defines a specific set of kinetics and oscillations within the system, which are not fully understood yet. Fundamentally, we are not dealing with wave functions directly; instead, wave functions are secondary emergent processes resulting from continuous motion undergoing action. There are two types of energy to consider: -Continuous angular motion flux, where energy grows with circumference length in a quantized angular motion environment. -Kinetic oscillations, where energy grows with frequency in a quantized angular motion environment. Wave functions cannot exist without angular motion quanta. It is possible that they depend on each other to exist recursively. While there might be a smaller granular scale than 2ℏ diameter length, this is currently unknown. Therefore, from our current understanding, angular motion is more fundamental than wave functions. Continuous motion flow with directionality differential seems more fundamental based on the equations and observations.

Gravity is not spreading out gravity is pushing in and it is the results of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe so you can think about it as being acceleration of mass as the expansion of the universe means you are expanding at the same time

Great discussion and clear points. Seems to me physics needs to remain physical if we want to apply it to new technology and techniques. It's so funny because i shied away from it due to the math intensity, but I'm fascinated by aerodynamics, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. I just found that my teacher could never explain to me why i needed to learn certain equations and rules past the old "it'll be on the test..." Glad you two can shed some perspective on Feyman's errors without making him into a 'bad guy'. I want to hear more about what a vacuum is! The straw explanation blew my puny brain.

You cannot have certainty unless you define the context within which the certainty is postulated.

amazing video🥂🍨

25:45 Regarding the whole section on 3 ways to formulate gravity, once again I think you're both misunderstanding Feynman. Aviram says that Feynman is right that the formulations are equivalent but isn't right about the conclusion, and then Aviram misinterprets the conclusion. Feynman wasn't saying that you have to be completely unprincipled and pragmatic about the models. Feynman was saying that none of these make predictions the others don't. If 2 models make different predictions, you can determine which one differs from reality by doing an experiment. If they don't differ, you can't say one is right and another is wrong WITHOUT EVIDENCE that any are wrong. In other words, you can't say one is wrong and another is right simply on your favorite philosophy. Sure, some are unlikely to be a good narrative description of the cause and effect of what reality is doing at the granular level, but you CANNOT CLAIM you know the fundamental base level of reality, without evidence backing you up. The history of physics, shows that every time physicists think they've reached the fundamental level of reality, they've turned out to be wrong so you can't claim your mental model is an accurate description of the fundamental level of reality. That's what Feynman is saying. No one knows the fundamental level of reality, and all these models are predictively equivalent, so you cannot give preference to one over others, without departing science and entering the realm of human desire.

Exactly it's all about action, (transformations over time). Then when going deeper into the continuum, it's about taking the curvatures out of space and time, and describing them with smaller quantities and distributions of action that describe the resistances acting to dilate perceived space and time. The more we can find the (action) components, the more we will be able to describe. For instance, a gravity wave moves like a cascading action, observational evidence shows that not only does (energy convert to mass, and mass to energy, but as well as the medium that intermediates mass and energy) which means we need to account for smaller quantities and distributions of action that describe the resistances acting to dilate perceived space and time, because that is made of energy based action as well. These concepts of a warpable space, and a dilating time are not behaving like a space or a time, they behave more like fluid of resistances. For instance, black hole mergers convert solar masses worth of energy into these gravitational waves, and these gravitational wave impart action on instruments, which is a direct energy conversion for (this mediums energy conversion towards detectable change in resistance acting on a instruments behavior). Energy density, mass, and the medium, seems to have more to do with a continuous vector field and the arrangements of motion direction differences over a volume within this vector field.

Causality is not confined to physicality. Causality is what confines everything else . Only part of reality consists of entities you can only see the smallest section of reality that is observable to humans and you're trying to impose that upon all of reality and you're trying to confine causality within itself

1:00:00 excellent. This is also what David deutsch says

Sir Arthur Eddington is an inspiration. Feynman is an exasperation.

You're absolutely correct. 👍👍

Well done presentation. The theme of this video is to make sure you tie your mind/observations to reality at all steps of your thinking process, and not start/end your thinking exclusively by the whims of your imagination. Thank you.

The entire problem you discuss here lies in our inability to specify with certainty which particle (photon, lepton, quark or any other) exactly are the DIGITS, with which we make our calculations in our minds. Once this is certain there is a 100% certainty as to what LAWS OF MOTION rule all events in the universe: Neither the Newton's Laws nor Schrödinger's wave function, but THE 4 BASIC RULES OF ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS (+ - × ÷). Then not only all laws of physics but also those of all other sciences, including those of the so called SOCIAL SCIENCES, would follow in a practically verifiable manner through application in own immediate surrounding by any lay person. So the task of all knowledge seekers is to first specify "which particles are what we call DIGITS?". And is it the same for all? Whatever one assumes them to be, the final answer MUST be confirmed by PRACTICAL PREVENTION of one or more of the evils specified exhaustively above. This condition also solves the current dichotomy between DETERMINISM and PROBABILISM (or whatever other name some call it: RANDOMISM, CHAOISM or whatever) by demanding that the laws that serve to PREVENT EVIL be deterministic, while all others be probailistic, as positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties so long as one is confident all negative potentials are PREVENTED with certainty. This is DESTINISM, where we first design the laws nature SHOULD follow to sustain evil free life function eternally and analyze phenomena thereafter, only to find the means for their continuous practical implementation.

A photon is just energized "spacetime" itself! That's why it "cancels itself out"!

Write out all the digits to the golden ratio now when you're done with that draw with a triangle you'll see the difference between a physical infinity and one represented with numbers now reverse that for a point because you could write the Infinity of a singularity as numbers but you cannot represent it because it's drawing a circle will not get it the reason you can do with the triangles because there's proportions a ratios involved a circle has a diameter but when you're talking about the singularity you're not talking about the parts of a circle because there is no parts it's a point so you cannot write it down as Pi or Phi represented geometrically the only way you can do it is with numbers and it's the opposite of the first example

Light does not experience time

Feynman is not the problem. Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective. What isnt effective is "string theory". Whoever dragged a large percentage of theoretical physicists into string theory is the root of the problem

I disagree modern physics is not following Feynman thinking,Feynman won a novel price in physics it says something,sure you can doubt anybody,but then who you trust,Feynman said if you theory don't agree with experiment you should abandon it,look at string theory,Feynman theory qcd is very accurate experimentally,and nobody is perfect, maybe we was wrong about somethings like everybody but value persons for their contributions not for the time the got something wrong because they all got something wrong at some point Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Euler, Galileo.

The universe is a very simple place. By using the laws of parsimony or Occam’s razor, we can reduce the complexity of the universe. According to the law of parsimony, which is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one when presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem; one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. Using this basic principle, we can start with the fewest number of particles that the universe can be made of. The answer to this must be, only one particle, because that is the smallest possible number that is available and it is a good starting point. Now, we need to give this particle a shape. What is the simplest possible shape that the universe has to offer? The answer being; - the sphere. Yes, the sphere is the simplest possible shape. Well, now that we have established a number and a shape of this particle, we will need to add some states or functions for this particle so that it can create a diverse universe of matter, space, gravity, energy and light. Well, that seems to be a pretty tall order for just one simple particle to perform, so how does this particle do such complex functions? Firstly, I’ll ask Nikola Tesla to see if he has any clues. “Nikola, how does the universe work?” Nikola says “the number 3 holds the secrets to how the universe works”. Thanks Nicola! I’ll take your advice and have a close look at nature to see how many times that the number 3 appears. Well, Nikola, it looks like you were right! The number 3 appears to be popping up everywhere when I look at fundamental elements and nature in general. Let’s make a list of what we can find - 1. The atom has an electron, proton and neutron - well that’s 3! That’s a good start! 2. The electric plug has 3 points - positive, negative and earth. Getting better! 3. In chemistry, there is acid, alkaline and neutral (3) Wonderful! 4. There are 3 states of matter - gas, liquid and solid. (Note - plasma is just a gas which is being pushed by aether flow) Phew!! That was a close one! 5. The human eye has 3 colour selection cones; red, blue and green. Perfect! 6. The brain sees the world in sections of 3 which is called the rule of thirds. It’s too good to be true, surely! 7. All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Marvellous! That’s just the icing on the cake! 8. 3 dimensions of space - height, breadth and width. 9. 3 Fractal dimensions - atoms, solar systems and galaxies. 10. The Equation E=MC^ has 3 parts. Thus, we can plainly see that the universe uses the number three at a fundamental level for all basic things. Thus, we can interpret this as a consequence that the ultimate particle must have 3 states or functions. Now, we have established that a sphere has 3 states or functions. So what 3 actions can a sphere in frictionless space perform? Well, I can only think of 3 possible movements that a sphere in frictionless space can do which are left spin, right spin or no spin. Thus, we now have a complete picture of the least number of particles; the simplest shape and simplest functions. Thus, according to the laws of parsimony, the universe would make a fundamental particle in this manner, if it was a logical universe which didn’t have any wastage or superfluous activity.

upvoting Feynman. He was more understandable and fun.

Don't pay attention to that kind of stuff in the I know what you mean and it's a fantastic adventure. You're doing well

You not understanding that your causality is you're not thinking in terms of a continuum that's why you can't find one on gravity because it's not quantum it is coming from our whole universe I needed pushing not pulling.

Everything is abstract ultimately as it's all just information. You can reduce every single thing in existence down to information and then you can reduce the information down to nothingness and that's the only other thing there is and in reality they are the same thing because that's where nothingness comes from. The information describing what nothingness is which is what also makes it something

The physical universe is only one small part of existence it's not even really physical. It's not acting that each particular particular place on the path it is acting everywhere. You are not understanding because this is how it Continuum is becoming quantized

Where did the law of nature come from. How are the values that it represents determined and how did Paulo in all places? See a physicist cannot explain where their own rules come from. They say everything what was the laws of nature but what determines the laws of nature but what determines them and where do they come from and why are there any at all in the first place? come on genius

An absence of something is also in Duality with that's something so a vacuum is a something that is the gift of everything that's why I absolutely nothing this is impossible because of the information that describes what it is which leads to inhabit describe all the things it isn't as well when it becomes Infinity with nothingness is a negative term for each one of those things so it's actually bigger

There is nothing physical. There's nothing solid material in existence it's all vibrating points of energy. Find me was just expressing the fact that some of these Concepts cannot even be explain in a physical fashion because they aren't physical they're beyond physical. And he was so influential because of he's working the electro thermal dynamics in his diagrams

It's ok everyone, Terrence Howard has figured out that 1*1 = 2 so I think we'll be alright.

They're literally is nothing physical and they're literally is in infinite number of possibilities that each point in space literally there isn't any literal Infinities within space its potential infinities they're not the same thing

What worries me most is how much of physics is dogma, and how little is actually experimentally known. For example, although we know now neutral matter and antimatter fall in a gravitational field, we only now assume electromagnetism is not or is extremely weakly coupled to gravity and in GUT only at very high energy scales. But there is so much in between, and the forces are so astronomically of different magnitude, we don't currently even know if a simple charged particle like the electron falls down, up, or something different in a gravitational field. This is because it is assumed all neutrall matter gravitates, but accessing even a miniscule fraction of the potential charge of matter would vaporize our measuring apparatus or create high electrical discharges rendering a meaningful measurement impossible with most setups. There certainly are reasons something could be afoot, particularly with Sakharov derivation of gravity as a residual EM effect. Its troubling we assume a lot without having honestly looked, and spend billions on big particle accelelerators when a much less costly electron beam experiment could explore something much more fundamental. I would love to design or take a physics class where the parameter space of what is unknown is better explored. It might be embarrassing, and not fit in our current grant structure, but many important questions are left unanswered when we grandstand too much, and just assume progress is marching forward...instead of looking with a little humility a little back.

56:33 Feynman is using zero sum true/false logic here! Not positive sum Hegelian logic! Oops!

Dude, this is off topic, but I think you will be interested. I think I figured out a way to do supersonic travel, it might be hard to engineer, but it physically checks out. Example, Golf balls have angular motion pits that allow it to store angular motion air pockets. However a golf ball only moves at speed close to ~200mph. For super sonic speeds and differentials in acceleration, it is required for you to have multiple angular motion wells (energy states) to store the motion. Which means adaptive angular motion pits, to be able to accumulate that energy in low resistance angular motion wells, to allow for further acceleration. As you accelerate or have greater velocity, the pressure on the boundary changes, the previous dimples become a resistance factor, therefore dimples need to change shape to facilitate the next angular motion energy state. Not just based on velocity or acceleration, but the density of the gas and pressure as a result of these acceleration deltas, and velocities. The more of that energy you can effectively store into angular motion, the more you can decrease the resistance to acceleration. A air craft's surface would have to protrude and contract differentially facilitate the hierarchical nesting of low resistance energy states of angular motion. What you are doing is creating wheels in the atmosphere to roll along. The parts of the angular motion that interact with the ship is moving in the same direction as the ship, the part of the angular motion that is moving in the opposing direction of the ship interacts with the air passing over the ship.

The universe is itself is an entity and the cause of relationship between it and the thing moving is between them the cause of the speed of light being what it is is the expansion of the universe being limited by causality are the inertia of nothingness

Where physics got off the path. A new rule to superposition allows gravity to be associated with quantum mechanics. The principle of duality is due to wave-to-wave collisions. Double Slit Debunked 5: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LkGiP6x9tpg.html

🤦‍♂️

Everything is mathematics and you can't understand exactly what's going on through mathematics not numbers mathematics mathematics includes numbers but numbers aren't all of mathematics and just like you cannot count to Infinity you cannot represent everything with numbers. But you can mathematically in one way or the other because it's a language and what language you can describe anything that can be described I just think you failed to see the correlations

Who are these randoms? From what i know feyman has contributed alot to science dont know about these two fools

You lose points for being an Ayn Rand fan @ 12:50. Wtf?

There is no physical reality that's why I laughed at people like you

You guys should go to 15th century and settle there.

Everything is philosophy

I don't know any materialist that's been successful at physics ever Beyond maybe Newton who himself was very religious so

There is nothing physically happening anywhere that's your problem

You are confusing literal facts of the matter with your materialistic point I love you at the literal facts of the matter lie outside of materialism and physical things. The the literal facts of the matter lie outside of objective reality as well as objective reality is just the sum total of all subjective reality averaged so it's never correct at all well every single subjective reality is 100% correct every time to itself only and then you have actual reality which neither one of those things describe and nothing else can

Always funny when people use modern tech, an application of modern physics, to say modern physics is wrong.

11:50 What entity are you talking about in this context then?

Why wouldn't like know the the shortest route to go what do you think you're smarter than light is question marks see the arrogance of physicist is just astounding as if you're somehow more intelligent than light which is Ageless and God

Oh look ... it's yet another nobody who is trying to be a somebody, and will not succeed.

This is an ingenious - critique of Feynman as incomplete. Moments later in the video Feynman illustrates the dangers of the 'shut-up & calculate regime' by comparing it to the ancient Mayans -- whose astronomy was based purely on calculation i.e. counti days with a ton of fudge factors built overtime. There was no science or discussion of what the moon was or of physical causal relations & results in a cul de sac of possibilities, advancement and impediment to new ways of thinking about the work. He also states in the same lecture that "mathematics is not physics & physics is not mathematics, they help each other." Not a good video. Just watch the Feynman lectures "On the Character of the Physical Law"

I agree: At the very least, modern physicists should not criticize astrology and homeopathy as pseudoscience. The one difference modern physics does have relative to astrology and homeopathy is that the predictions of modern physics are far, far more accurate, but the causal understandings have, after Einstein and QM, descended to comparable levels.

I'm confused af by your arguments. You're trying to argue that because the current most successful techniques of describing reality don't fit your Philosophy, Modern Physics is all wrong? If we had stuck to your Philosophy of strictly dealing with cause/effect, we would be stuck in the early 1900s. If I'm wrong, please show me an example of the "right" way to do physics. In my opinion Feynman was everything Physics teachers should be, because he tries his hardest to show you the fundamental cause/effect, he would use several classes to explain one concept that most teachers and books would just give you the equations. Your first clip Feynman says he doesn't really think theres infinite things, but he doesn't know so he doesn't want to be biased. Just because you're unable to comprehend infinity or other non-intuitive things doesn't mean it couldn't be. Use some imagination bro. And even if your philosophy is right, it doesn't mean we shouldn't use these techniques to describe reality until technology becomes advanced enough to see the cause/effect. The point is to not be biased, because we don't know. Seems like you have an unfounded and un-useful grudge. If I'm wrong, show me how to do Physics "right".

This video is PURE rationalism. You are watching Feynman give a general audience a fun lecture. Watch Feynman teach the actual class and argue with the mathematics. This childish notion that math is a lie is so dumb. Concept formation in large part is a mathematical process, math is important. You are literally strawmanning one the your own heros for clout from flat earthers! Wake up! Grow Up!

Dr Angela Collier has a video titled "physics crackpots" that this dude needs to watch. Sounds like she's talking about you lol. If you can't do the math, you're not doing real physics. The math is what makes it work as science.

Baloney. Copenhagen. Shut up and measure. Once you understand the measurement, you can formulate an event chain.