The Human Story Lurking behind the Hofstadter Butterfly

[@lopzag]

I think this might be my favourite lecture of all time.

[@johnglennmercury7]

Looking forward to it

[@eenvlaamsegaai]

37:51 Douglas in 2018, wearing a peculiar pullover, showing a photograph of himself in 1974/1975, wearing the exact same pullover.

[@pcve]

sharp

[@stelun56]

A distinguished academic who has made my life so much more meaningful. Today's sadness affords tomorrow's happiness and vice versa. 3:25

[@nbme-answers]

Comments section is underappreciating the fact that he's wearing the same sweater from the photo (38:07).

[@JoeyTaylor-zh7pg]

I would love to understand any of this

[@TheVincent0268]

Did he keep that pullover for forty-four years?

[@douglasdickerson5184]

Fascinating.

[@shaileshdhuri4166]

Note to camera person Zoom in when slides change

[@hyperbolicandivote]

Where did he get a white laser pointer?

[@TheVincent0268]

The white projection screen is just too small to have a good view of the presented formula's and pictures.

[@cyberpunkworld]

What I mean and whether I mean it is not computable. It is not text. It is energy. It is intensity. It has a magnitude.

[@joanaguardiola810]

Nadie puede subtitularlo al español?, va tan rápido que no puedo traducirlo. Debe ser muy interesante lo que dice...

[@RobRussell]

Very interesting topic, thanks for publishing this. Are the slides available online as well? The screen is hard to read in the video.

[@cyberpunkworld]

Spot the mistake in my Les Fleurs du Mal movie??? It is the shot from the car, showing the car dashboard.... Must remove it. Totally off topic.

[@Achrononmaster]

@6:10 The naïve question (and answer by R.P.F) about "number theory" is completely nuts. There is no such thing as "number theory" separate from _all of mathematics._ The "branches" of "math" taught in universities (i.e., mostly anti-learning institutions) are totally artificial, Feynman should've done better here. As for "physics" and Wigner's question, physics/science needs a language, and mathematics does a better job than French or English in describing physics. Geometry came out of physics, not out of pure mathematical logic. So Eugene Wigner's question is a classic case of cart before horse.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Discovery is a skill developed by repeatedly using the basic elements of principles applied to various situations. Sometimes the process goes in the reverse direction and what is already "known and understood" turns out to be mislabeled and used in a misdirected purpose. Physics is the science of measurement, quantifying quality and, in part Philosophy is the reverse, the meaning of measurements in context, qualifying quantities. So if there's a bridging principle, it's e-Pii resonance => cause-effect biochemistry, context of the observable universe. Numerology is "lies to children" +/-. Applying Quantum Fields Mechanism logically, even if you don't have a concept of the process in appropriate terminology, will effectively discover significant results, should some serendipity occur also. Because QFM is ubiquitous, it's only the language problem that blocks a competent researcher from going to the next stage of predicting probable results. All human endeavors are wrapped in inappropriate terminology, in retrospect, but because of the parents to children process of education, it's a requirement for mentoring and providing a barrier to inadvertent instabilities +/-. So it goes...