I disagree - though he has improved with age and the input of employees of course. Look at his early YT videos on Mathematica kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g8uldqSFmq6omGQ.html He was a bit of a boomer and jargonizer.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bL2RqNWpncuRYaM.html

(Leonord Susskind on Richard Feynman)💯

I've been binging on Wolfram, and I've come to think that he simplifies too often. Avoids "getting into the weeds", so that he can communicate to a broader audience. But I don't like things being over-simplified, even if I am not someone who works with math ever, I can often follow things.

@@inthefade I think you are probably right about simplification. And Wolfram is in his own universe, so there is probably no point trying to persuade him of anything.

@@RalphDratman Interesting take. I sort of see Eric Weinstein that way, as for me his simplified analogies don't seem to carry the water the way that Wolfram's do. Last month, Wolfram and Weinstein were together on Dr. Keating's podcast.

There are open source computer algebra systems you can take a look at, if you want a detailed approach

YES. These need to be archived and made public.

memespace I agree. But he’s a CEO, so I’m not holding my breath. Some of them can be jackasses against open source

@@aeroscience9834 He's made his 1200 page book "A New Kind of Science" free on his website. If he's willing to release that much of his own work for free, then the reason he hasn't released Feynmans notes is probably because he hasn't thought to, and not because he doesn't want to.

Arik ok, I hope so

I sent an email to Stephens contact email on his website asking if he would be willing to release Feynman's notes. I got this reply: "Arik, Thank you for your message. And yes, Stephen Wolfram has in his archives papers written by Richard Feynman. In addition to these papers, he also has a wide variety of other interesting historical documents. Eventually, Stephen Wolfram plans to make these papers available online. ****** ****** ****** ****** Wolfram Research, Inc." I left out the responders name and title because I felt it would be discourteous to post it in a public setting without his consent, but it was not Stephen himself.

medium.com/cantors-paradise/richard-feynmans-integral-trick-e7afae85e25c I imagine this is one of them?

I have been so impolite and raised this question/Appel directly to Dr. Wolfram via email (: and I got an answer from his employee that Mr. Wolfram plans to publish it together with other interesting historical artifacts. So let’s hope it will actually happen.

you are at John Hopkins, you people push science and tech in new arena, keep going brother

@@RahulKumar-ng2gh hopefully u can too!

I don't mean to demean your good work, but comments like these might be more useful if they have fewer chapters.

Yeah I love Feynman's work, and from what I can tell his biggest gift was his intuition. I daresay Wolfram is seeing his own strengths in Feynman, and missing the jewel that the truly wonderful physicists have polished; intuition. The reason people read Feynman's lectures, indeed even physics profs who know the material exceptionally well, is for the amazing turns of insight he grants on just about everything. Another point a few, an flourish of understanding; those lectures have no especial calculations (bar a few, his demonstration of euler's formula is very nice and I haven't seen it elsewhere) but they have depth nonetheless. But then again maybe neither Feynman nor Wolfram understood one another, they were after all very different men in the end in terms of their work.

I think that Stephen was trying to say that the way Feynmann _finally_ arrived at the great Intuitive frameworks we've all seen is exactly through his skill at calculating. That is to say that he definitely started with intuition, but checked and refined it through calculation. Wolfram insinuated that Feynmann himself didn’t really understand the importance of his calculations because he was so used to it being easy for him. You can tell from how he proceeded to try Rule 30 not knowing what would come out just to see what would happen. His intuition was, with regard to advancing science, for the central necessity of a computational science and general knowledge language which enables people to quickly and easily manipulate and check data, and communicate easily verifiable results (vital to peer review and building on other work) to quickly develop intuition. Now that’s not to say we won’t return to an intuitive framework at some point in the future. Great conversation. Thanks Lex!

Thats because Weinstein doesn't actually have anything meaningful to explain 99% of the time. Most of the time he's just regurgitating complex words without making any meaningful connections between them

@@obsoleteboomermobileobsole2043 I agree completely. That was kind of my hidden point. He's very bright but also a bit of a nut job

I can't help but feel the same way. I have a suspecting feeling that he's quite over the top and is enjoying his influence/power and trying to gain more. I recently unfollowed him on twitter.

@@theblackhundreds7124 he speaks about many topics maybe even outside of his expertise. What expertise are you suggesting?

I got to say i have had the exact feeling in this thread about Weinstein for some time. Maybe I'm naive but the thing that always gives me pause is that he's still managing director at Thiel. In my imagination, that's a job that allows no room for spin. I am guessing that if you aren't brilliant and proving it by delivering consistent results then you don't last long. But I'm not a finance guys so maybe I'm just wrong about the field.

You need to rewatch the video dude

brother can you give me a link to that video with timestamp also.

...:)

???

Not just you...

Nope I picked it up to. I dont enjoy listening to Wolfram. No doubt he's brilliant, but just not pleasant to me. Always making attempts to point out his accomplishments or things he saw before anyone else.

He's probably telling the truth

@@e376342 yeah, he probably is... i don't suspect he's dishonest. he just seems unusually interested in relaying stories that counter the feynman myths. it makes him seem a bit insecure/petty imo.

It’s just you. He knew him you didn’t. Therefor your just acting like a Feynman cheerleader. I like Wolfram probably because my own experiences relate to his so much. Im a top performer in my industry and I work with colleagues who are more famous then me and very talented, so everyone is always kissing their butt and they have massive egos as a result…but I actually work with them and their fans don’t…so I have all their massive failures and lack of work ethic in the back of my little head. I’m amused at how often they try to test me…but like i say, the cream always rises in the crop, and the flakes will drop…so the people that know me, know I deliver and they don’t. Wolfram is a winner: he made a TOE, is a Billionaire, is a genius…he does things…he’s a do-er. Keep in mind, I’m not saying Feynman is a faker…I’m saying that Wolframs general attitude towards things is good attitude in my eyes. “Screw kissing butt I’ll tell you what really goes on.”

Agreed. He comes across as a pretty good self publicist...

In my take Feynman handed those notes to Stephen because Stephen has a gift for systematization, a process which Feynman began but didn't have the heart to take to fruition himself. Stephen has surely assessed those papers, but to actually "look at" those papers means to figure out whether there's a systematization effort worth completing in the spirit that Feynman once intended. Once Stephen stepped out of academia, he was _more_ than busy enough with his entrepreneurial lifestyle not to get back to this. Stephen's own precocity rivaled Feynman's. There was a _reason_ Stephen was personally recruited-at the prodigious age of 18-to enroll as a graduate student at Caltech by Murray Gel-Mann himself. If Stephen was indeed a level below Feynman, it's not by any larger margin that Freeman Dyson was below Srinivasa Ramanujan. Dyson published an extremely successful paper interpreting Ramanujan's work on the partition function (1944), even guessing at a formal foundation (the "crank" of the partition) which was only much later unearthed from Ramanujan's papers in 1976, which had been hiding in plain sight lo those many years. (Do you detect a theme here?) I once heard that the last recourse to a failed toy model in physics was to try to get Freeman Dyson interested. If you showed him your conundrum on Friday afternoon, there was a decent chance you'd get a piece of correspondence early the next week-Monday morning in the age of e-mail-explaining your way out of the whole pickle. Nowadays this same story circulates about the mathematical prodigy Terence Tao. It's a tradition at Princeton after defending your dissertation to write up your dissertation experience, which Tao did. "Throughout, I didn't have to back up anything with messy calculations: Rudnick always stopped me when I tried." Translation: they were terrified to let Terence get up a good head of steam on an empty blackboard. "After this, they decided to pass me, though they said that my harmonic analysis was far from satisfactory." And then what? "In 2006 he received the Fields Medal "for his contributions to partial differential equations, combinatorics, harmonic analysis and additive number theory, and was also awarded the MacArthur Fellowship." Interesting. So why were the faculty harshing on Terry over his inadequacies in the area of harmonic analysis? Easy. He was awarded his PhD at age 21, where most of his peers were still finishing the final year of their undergraduate degree. He simply didn't have the miles yet to have covered every field to the same depth as another candidate who defends his or her dissertation at age 27. Dyson in his own time held the reputation as the terrible Terence Tao of his own little corner of mathematical physics, his own career so accelerated he wasn't even required to obtain a PhD (go directly to the Institute for Advanced Study). And who did Dyson regard as the greatest lightning calculator of his generation? A certain Dick Feynman. From _Of Historical Note: Richard Feynman_ (2011) _Feynman and I really understand each other; I know that he is the one person in the world who has nothing to learn from what I have written; and he doesn't mind telling me so. That afternoon, Feynman produced more brilliant ideas per square minute than I have ever seen anywhere before or since. In the evening I mentioned that there were just two problems for which the finiteness of the theory remained to be established; both problems are well-known and feared by physicists. ... When I mentioned this fact, Feynman said, "We'll see about this," and proceeded to sit down and in two hours, before our eyes, obtain finite and sensible answers to both problems. It was the most amazing piece of lightning calculation I have ever witnessed, and the results prove, apart from some unforeseen complication, the consistency of the whole theory. The two problems were the scattering of light by an electric field and the scattering of light by light._ From _Remembering Murray Gell-Mann, Inventor of Quarks_ - 30 May 2019 _While I was at Caltech, Margaret Gell-Mann got very sick with cancer, and Murray threw himself into trying to find a cure. (He blamed himself for not having made sure Margaret had had more checkups.) It wasn't long before Margaret died. Murray invited me to the memorial service. But somehow I didn't feel I could go; even though by then I was on the faculty at Caltech, I just felt too young and junior. I think Murray was upset I didn't come, and I've felt guilty and embarrassed about it ever since._ So there's Stephen so deferential to his _own_ intellectual idol, that he can't even find it inside himself to pay proper courtesy to the man's deceased spouse. (This being the kind of otherwise commonplace social calculation not included in any PhD awarded under the age of 25). It's also interesting that Stephen wrote an obituary for his Caltech colleague Gell-Mann (he has written a few of these) and not for his Caltech colleague Richard Feynman (not that I was able to find). Clearly from the Gell-Mann obituary, Stephen regarded Murray as having a much deeper intuition than Dick (who he believed obtained most of his legendary intuition through the back door of lightening calculation, as he corroborates in this video). Guess who wrote the most scathing review of _A New Kind of Science_ of all time. Freeman Dyson. _For now, the skeptics aren't having it. "Worthless!" says renowned physicist Freeman Dyson, who received an early copy of A New Kind of Science and required only a glance before dismissing it. "It's a case of style over substance."_ (Wired) But does that entirely end the matter? Not really. Feynman and Gell-Mann by the end could hardly find a nice thing to say about each other, either. Turns out, there were raging differences of taste in World War Wunderkind. Major influences on Stephen before he rushed off to the Left Coast at Gell-Mann's personal invitation: Michael Atiyah and Roger Penrose (George Zweig also comes into the picture at some point). Dyson's influences at Oxford: Hardy, Littlewood, Dirac, and Besicovich. About his course of study during the onset of WWII when much of the university was a ghost-town and the few underaged students who remained enjoyed small and intimate study groups: "Dirac is very slow and easy to follow; Pars and Besicovich a bit quicker; Hardy goes on like an avalanche and it is all I can do to keep up with him." If you think Steven's access to Atiyah was much of a step down from Dyson's access to Hardy, you're smoking something: "Michael Atiyah (OM FRS FRSE FMedSci FAA FREng) was awarded the Fields Medal in 1966 and the Abel Prize in 2004." Stephen is admittedly a weird cat, and his pet theory is not to everyone's taste by any means, but if you came away from this clip with the supposition he doesn't even belong at the same table with Dick Feynman, you seriously need to adjust your smug-buster.

Wrong. Wolfram is a briliant prodigy, whereas Feyman's tested IQ was under 130. In terms of mental capacity, I am convinced Wolfram is superior. In terms of science impact, I think Feyman is almost a god in comparison with Wolfram. However, let's remember that Wolfram is also an antrepreneur, a businessman, he didn't dedicate his entire life to raw science

During those times IQ had to do with linguistic skills. Feynman was never a language person. If it were to be Mathematical IQ, his IQ would be off-charts. Even Fermi and von Neumann praised him.

@@mightydeadunicorn Thank you for your kind remark.