We seem gradually to be groping toward an understanding of the world of subatomic particles, but we really do not know how far we have yet to go in this task.
Richard P. FeynmanRead
The philosophical question before us is, when we make an observation of our track in the past, does the result of our observation become real in the same sense that the final state would be defined if an outside observer were to make the observation?
Interpretation
This quote reflects on the nature of reality and observation, questioning how our perceptions of the past shape our understanding of what is real.
Richard P. Feynman's quote delves into the relationship between observation and reality, suggesting that our understanding of past events may differ from an objective perspective. It challenges us to consider whether our interpretations of experiences truly capture the essence of those moments, or if they are merely subjective constructs shaped by our minds, thus raising deeper philosophical questions about existence and knowledge.
In practice
Discussing the nature of reality in a philosophy class.
We seem gradually to be groping toward an understanding of the world of subatomic particles, but we really do not know how far we have yet to go in this task.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem; therefore, I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem.
For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?
Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgments can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show.
We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics.
If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which their countries' freedom will remain a distant dream.
When we're interested in something, everything around us appears to refer to it (the mystics call these phenomena "signs," the sceptics "coincidence," and psychologists "concentrated focus," although I've yet to find out what term historians should use).
The art of living lies less in eliminating our troubles than in growing with them.
things which in my mind blossom will stumble beneath a clumsiest disguise appear capable of fragility and indecision
Resolved ... that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism - free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence.
Why is it that when we talk to God we're said to be praying but when God talks to us we're schizophrenic?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.