Richard Feynman. Why.

And we can actually listen here Feynman's answer to " what is the meaning of... " and " why " questions: [this video] Note, despite the title of somebody presenting this segment of his talk, he definitely doesn't talk just about "magnets" but really about "the meaning" and "why" questions (the youtube poster got it). About the needed "expected framework" to avoid "perpetual why questions" etc. Even the things that we take for granted, e.g. using electricity in our day to day life, or the eventual "why" we don't fall through the floor can't be properly explained using just our "common" intuition. In another direction, it works, we are "used" to see some effects of the electrical forces all the time, so that's what is "intuitive" to us because we're familiar with it. So back to the original title of the article submission here: "why ... shrugged off the paradoxes..." it can be easily seen that once one is getting an answer inside of the expected framework, one doesn't "shrug it off," one is actually satisfied with the answer.

Regarding "fully" understanding physics, I like to refer people to Feynman's answer to a question about why magnets repel each other[0]. "Assuming something" is one integral part of the scientific method. You formulate a question, you build a hypothesis from prior knowledge, you make predictions, you test them, you analyze your results which might lead you to change your hypothesis or not. "Greatness" is finding simple hypotheses (like "the laws of physics are the same as viewed from any inertial frame and the speed of light is the same for every observer") that predict/"explain" effects that were inconsistent with prior hypotheses. Of course you can never really prove a model of the world is correct - another model that predicts differences that are too small for us to measure might be the "truth", but, until we can measure it, there isn't much use in pondering ... [0] [this video]

Probably not at this stage, but it seems at least conceivable that the technology may move in that direction. In general I think LLMs are very overhyped, but this is an area I do concede they could be very useful with some tweaking. Right now I think there's too much "and the kitchen sink" in the models, but a more selectively trained model might be very useful for this. Truth of the matter is that many teachers know the curriculum, but if you ask them a basic question, they won't answer the question with nearly the same depth for example Feynman[1] would have. Now educators with both the ability and depth of knowledge of Feynman is clearly a very limited resource. LLMs may just change that since they can be given the depth with relative ease, the rest of the owl is making them good educators as well. [1] [this video]

It's hard to explain because I found it so unremarkable and banal. But there was a small part of the book I took particular issue, "Your expectation on answering the question why goes deep. (No duh!) You might need to adjust your expectations of understanding to be less rigorous." He says the same thing in this video: [this video] It's basically his book. I think not only does this not match my personal experience, experience I've understood from others at large, but in particular Einstein who had deep insights because of his depths of understanding "why" in broad categories of topics. Einstein's brilliance was a synergistic understanding. Better, if we don't know something, it's best to say, "It's not yet understood" and explain expected horizons for exploration. I would compare this attitude to Sabine Hossenfelder who says, "Yes! We can figure things out including quantum gravity. It's not our 'why's' that are wrong, but almost certainly our (amazingly crazy) assumptions."

> I listened to the whole thing and I found it very convincing. Eh? "Lex Fridman's" voice is shaky as fuck in the first 30 seconds and apparently he can't pronounce science now? - it says sci-in. (It continues to be flawed - he sounds sick when he says UC Berkeley). If I heard this knowing it was really him I would be concerned he was having a stroke. His voice is defective enough that it is actually irritating to listen to. Also, the opening monologue doesn't sound much like Feynman's style - he was known for being irreverent, flippant, intense and maybe even occasionally dismissive - but not this aggressive - certainly in a sitdown interview he agreed to. Also hard to believe he would fuck up the word "interviewee". He wants to "walk"? and listen?. [this video] This would only fool someone that has never heard Feynman speak for an appreciable period - but then you might as well get a decent impersonator. And really the content doesn't hold up to even basic critical listening scrutiny. > They mostly don't say nonsense. Oh god dude, most of the material is false and easily verified as false from basic sources. It's mostly nonsense. EDIT: Ok listening to segment between 3:30 and 4:30 I know I'm being trolled.