Scientists (with a few notable exceptions) will do everything they possibly can to avoid thinking about the origin point of the universe, because it deals way too much with the ineffable where things get uncomfortably close to philosophy, poetry and theology. But the dilemma is, of course, that if they're not going to talk about an origin point, they have to talk about infinity, which makes them equally uncomfortable. Having an interest in theoretical physics, I've been watching this play out over the past decades. It's kind of delightful, watching them squirm.
No, I think Hoyle is actually saying he's not comfortable with uncertainty. He likes to make up an answer and just act as though it's true, more or less. It doesn't matter to him if a theory reflects actual reality as long as it's beautiful.
To me, Hoyle seems like he's fine with believing something because it's beautiful, but Feynman believes what nature tells him. When Feynman is shaking his head in disagreement at the end of the video clip, he's saying that he's not really interested in guessing at how it will all come out, lest he kind of latch on to that belief. In other words, Feynman is perfectly comfortable with not knowing.
This concept is such a huge tenet in my own personal life that it's hard for me to articulate just how important it is.
"I’m trying to find out not how nature could be, but how how nature is.” That's my jam, too.
it's odd, speaking just about F and not about you, of course, because I read that line of F's exactly opposite. that he cares about how things ARE, indicating that he's uncomfortable with uncertainty.
I also think there's merit in leaning towards the beautiful in situations of unceratinty -- I suppose in some ways, that's a huge tenet for me!
Agree on the beauty and wonder in not knowing! We need to embrace that feeling more and draw from it. Curiosity is what drives me here -- without not knowing things, I would have no purpose here. That sense of wonder when I do finally learn how something is? Totally worth it.
yes. a fairly good argument can be made that most of the troubles in this world come from people being very sure they're right and very sure that others are wrong. but there is grace in not knowing and living in the liminal beauty of uncertainty
I didn't know about the origin of the term until now; this explains a lot. There was a Calvin and Hobbes strip on the subject, in which Calvin argues that this particular theory should have a more evocative name than the Big Bang. Naturally Hobbes asks what he would call it, and Calvin answers, "the Horrendous Space Kablooie!"
I would actually prefer that, I think, and now I can't help wondering whether Hoyle would've liked that better or not. Probably not, under the circumstances.
Ha, imagine the BBC broadcast that led to *that* marvelous mouthful:
"These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one horrendous space kablooie at a particular time in the remote past. Hey, you gonna finish that Earl Grey tea, old chap?"
The SF is largely out of print now, so that doesn't matter as much. And what was deleted was more about the "weeding" process of removing old and out of date material than anything personal against Hoyle, I think.
Scientists (with a few notable exceptions) will do everything they possibly can to avoid thinking about the origin point of the universe, because it deals way too much with the ineffable where things get uncomfortably close to philosophy, poetry and theology. But the dilemma is, of course, that if they're not going to talk about an origin point, they have to talk about infinity, which makes them equally uncomfortable. Having an interest in theoretical physics, I've been watching this play out over the past decades. It's kind of delightful, watching them squirm.
The scientists I admire pretty much all say the same thing: "we don't know, and we're comfortable with this uncertainty." That's just how Feynman was.
Doesn't his last line that you call out at the end of your piece suggest the opposite, with regard to Feynman?
No, I think Hoyle is actually saying he's not comfortable with uncertainty. He likes to make up an answer and just act as though it's true, more or less. It doesn't matter to him if a theory reflects actual reality as long as it's beautiful.
To me, Hoyle seems like he's fine with believing something because it's beautiful, but Feynman believes what nature tells him. When Feynman is shaking his head in disagreement at the end of the video clip, he's saying that he's not really interested in guessing at how it will all come out, lest he kind of latch on to that belief. In other words, Feynman is perfectly comfortable with not knowing.
This concept is such a huge tenet in my own personal life that it's hard for me to articulate just how important it is.
"I’m trying to find out not how nature could be, but how how nature is.” That's my jam, too.
it's odd, speaking just about F and not about you, of course, because I read that line of F's exactly opposite. that he cares about how things ARE, indicating that he's uncomfortable with uncertainty.
I also think there's merit in leaning towards the beautiful in situations of unceratinty -- I suppose in some ways, that's a huge tenet for me!
Agree on the beauty and wonder in not knowing! We need to embrace that feeling more and draw from it. Curiosity is what drives me here -- without not knowing things, I would have no purpose here. That sense of wonder when I do finally learn how something is? Totally worth it.
yes. a fairly good argument can be made that most of the troubles in this world come from people being very sure they're right and very sure that others are wrong. but there is grace in not knowing and living in the liminal beauty of uncertainty
I didn't know about the origin of the term until now; this explains a lot. There was a Calvin and Hobbes strip on the subject, in which Calvin argues that this particular theory should have a more evocative name than the Big Bang. Naturally Hobbes asks what he would call it, and Calvin answers, "the Horrendous Space Kablooie!"
I would actually prefer that, I think, and now I can't help wondering whether Hoyle would've liked that better or not. Probably not, under the circumstances.
Ha, imagine the BBC broadcast that led to *that* marvelous mouthful:
"These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one horrendous space kablooie at a particular time in the remote past. Hey, you gonna finish that Earl Grey tea, old chap?"
The SF is largely out of print now, so that doesn't matter as much. And what was deleted was more about the "weeding" process of removing old and out of date material than anything personal against Hoyle, I think.
Interesting. I've never known anything about Hoyle's sci-fi side. I see that there are a few audio books available!
Not much. Most of his books don't seem to be in my local library- that's probably because of the controversy you outlined here.
Like, even sci-fi, though? Seems like a pretty big overreaction, doesn't it?
Hoyle was also a prolific author of science fiction novels, chiefly collaborating with his son Geoffrey on those projects.
Oh nice! Have you ever read anything by either Hoyle?
+1 for finding that relevant feynman / hoyle covnersation!
Couldn't resist.