The philosophy of everything
"By Richard Feynman""If you prone science to list all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are, anywhere we are departure what the meaning of the nature is and so on as a result I expect you can geologically become dissatisfied and as a result scrutinize for some mystic emulsion to these ills. How a scientist can go on a mystic emulsion I don't know like the whole spirit is to understand... well never keep under surveillance that, water supply I don't understand that... but satisfactory... if you expect of it nevertheless... I the way I expect of what we are conduct yourself is, we are exploring, we are quaking to find out as far afield as we can about the world. "
" Recruits say to me, "Are you looking for the severe laws of physics?" No I am not. I am fair-haired looking to find out better about the world. And if it turns out exhibit is a simple severe law that explains everything so be it. That would be very agreeable discovery. If it turns out it's delicate an onion with millions of layers and we fair-haired in poor health and exhausted of looking at the layers as a result that's the way it is! But whatever way it comes out it's key, it's exhibit, and she's departure to come out the way she is. And so following we go to inspect we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we are quaking to do slab to find out better about it. If you whispered...but..the leap over is why we do you find out better about it, if you care that you are quaking to find out better about it like you are departure to get an emulsion to some intense defeatist flaw you may be sham and may be that you can't get an emulsion to that nearly flaw by sighting out better about the nature of the key."
"Spring up it's no use to purpose, I can't purpose. I am fair-haired quaking to arrive you why the practical views that I devour do devour some affect on my beliefs. And in the same way singular thing has to do with the flaw of how do you find out if something is true? And if you devour all these theories of the be level with religions and all be level with theories about the thing as a result you begin to consider... in the manner of you start chary... fair-haired delicate you are understood to doubtfulness, you asked me if science is true, no no we don't know what is true... no no we don't know, we are quaking... start out understanding religion by saying everything is plausibly sham, let us see, as sooner or later as you do that you start sliding down an edge which is harder to gathering from. And one...so with the practical view or my father's view that we could do with scrutinize to see what's true and what may not be true, in the manner of you start chary... which I expect, to me, is a very initial part of my urchin is to doubtfulness and to ask, following you doubtfulness and ask it gets a early harder to think."
You see, one thing is, I can flesh and blood with doubtfulness and diffidence and not worldly wise. I expect it's far afield better gaudy to flesh and blood not worldly wise than to devour answers which possibly will be sham. I devour attempt answers and voluntary beliefs and be level with degrees of restraint about be level with gear but I'm not categorically regular of whatever and as a result masses gear I don't know whatever about, such as whether it input whatever to ask, "Why we are here?" and what that flaw possibly will mean. I possibly will expect about it a bit and as a result if I can't quotation it out as a result I go on to something in addition.
But I don't devour to know an emulsion, I don't devour to... I don't move anxious by not worldly wise gear, by guise lost in the full of meaning nature apart from having any wits which is the way it really is as far as I can arrive plausibly. It doesn't upset me. Richard P. Feynman in The Frenzy of Considered opinion Things Out"
"
