<div dir="ltr">Jon --<div><br></div><div>Can you clarify where you heard:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">He departs from the main thread of the lecture at one point to go<br>on a diatribe about how bad-faith actors continue to mystify what he sees to<br>be directly calculable[\u03e1]. It seems important to me to not confuse an<br>inability to understand some phenomena for a lack of imagination.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>He says that "Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger did a disservice to people by putting the uncertainty principle so high in their discussions" and that led to philosophers proclaiming that everything is uncertain. But there are no bad faith actors there, it's just typical science journalism, trolling for the juiciest clickbait.<br></div><div><br></div><div>He then goes on to say that the thing which _is_ completely uncertain is the orbit of the electron in an atom. </div><div><br></div><div>Which is what I thought Feynman meant by:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Open Sans",Arial,"sans serif"">I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.</span><br></blockquote><div><div class="gmail-center gmail-c-bottom" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:0px 0px;font-size:16px;text-align:center;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;clear:both"><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div>Here's the lecture (<a href="https://youtu.be/41Jc75tQcB0?t=77">https://youtu.be/41Jc75tQcB0?t=77</a>) that contains this statement, which is the point which the lecture is constructed to drive home. And here's where he asks what's really happening? <a href="https://youtu.be/41Jc75tQcB0?t=2813">https://youtu.be/41Jc75tQcB0?t=2813</a> And answers exactly the same as Bethe, there is no machinery which explains this, we can only compute the result, we have no mechanism for the result, only a description.</div><div><br></div><div>Looking back, I think I bollixed my explanation. I'm still perfectly happy to let the math do the work, I don't seek any further interpretations of "How can it be that way?" <br></div><div><br></div><div>-- rec --</div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:22 PM Jon Zingale <<a href="mailto:jonzingale@gmail.com">jonzingale@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Roger,<br>
<br>
Thanks for finding the lectures, it appears that the url location wasn't too<br>
far from where it had been. Now that I am watching it again, it is this<br>
third lecture you highlight that I was thinking of.<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Sent from: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br>
</blockquote></div>