Tinkerin' Thinkers
1 HN recommender · recommended in 3 months, 2013–2018
55:55 · 638K views · Jan 28, 2011
Part 2 of Richard Feynman's Messenger Lectures at Cornell, The Character of Physical Law, on the relation of mathematics to physics. He explains why understanding nature requires mathematics.
Recommended as a lecture so clear that no formal training is needed to follow it, and cited on why math is needed for physics.
3 comments from Hacker News
Physics is just mindblowing. When I think deeply about the fact that things that are moving will keep on moving forever unless a force acts on them, and the fact that no one knows why it's true (and that the question may not even have any meaning), and that my body is nothing more than a very advanced method of propagating genetics, then... well, it's just a lot of fun to think about! The fact that there are mysteries that no life will ever have answers to is quite humbling. If you find physics interesting, then you'll love these Feynman lectures. Feynman is so good at explaining these concepts that you don't even need any formal training to understand them. Lecture 1: The Law of Gravitation [LINK] Lecture 2: The Relation of Mathematics to Physics this video Lecture 3: The Great Conservation Principles [LINK] Lecture 4: Symmetry in Physical Law [LINK] Lecture 5: The Distinction of Past and Future [LINK] Lecture 6: Probability and Uncertainty [LINK]
Feynman referred to this issue at the end of his second Messenger Lecture: this video Transcript: .. To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that "the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician". To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. It is too bad that it has to be mathematics, and that mathematics is hard for some people. It is reputed - I do not know if it is true - that when one of the kings was trying to learn geometry from Euclid he complained that it was difficult. And Euclid said, "There is no royal road to geometry". And there is no royal road. Physicists cannot make a conversion to any other language. If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in. She offers her information only in one form; we are not so unhumble as to demand that she change before we pay any attention. All the intellectual arguments that you can make will not communicate to deaf ears what the experience of music really is. In the same way all the intellectual arguments in the world will not convey an understanding of nature to those of "the other culture". Philosophers may try to teach you by telling you qualitati
You ask a trick question. We view and interpret the world through the tools we have (math). Feynman pointed out this absurdity here ( this video ) The ancients used geometry, classical theory tends to analytical expressions, modern theory is mostly fields, and likely future developments will be computational. The old tools will likely go the way of Greek and Latin and geometry and geography.