
Feynman's Clock - danso
http://danwin.com/2012/06/feynmans-clock/
======
bishnu
Wow, what a misleading article. The "she's dead, and how's the project?" quip
wasn't to show the scientific, rational way Feynman dealt with death but
rather the unhealthy manner in which he'd internalized his grief. The book
goes on to describe, at great length, how Feynman would spontaneously break
down in tears when he saw something that reminded him of her, and how he'd
continue to have conversations with her after her death (which I believe led
to his disqualification from military service). I suppose that doesn't fit in
well with the narrative of "Feynman is the ideal all rational thinkers should
strive for!!!" this guy seems to be pushing though.

~~~
larrys
"but rather the unhealthy manner in which he'd internalized his grief."

I look at it differently. I just think he didn't want to be annoyed by a bunch
of standard "sorry to hear about your loss" that many people receive when
someone hears about their loss.

He said:

"I didn’t know how I was going to face all my friends at Los Alamos. I didn’t
want people with long faces talking to me about the death of Arlene. "

To me "long faces" is the key. The long faces make him feel uncomfortable.
Just like many people are comfortable singing in front of their parents and
friends and showing emotions and others are not.

~~~
zwischenzug
You're saying the same thing in a different way. He repressed his grief
because he couldn't cope with it. It wasn't a healthy reaction.

It was an understandable and normal reaction, given his youth and the pressure
he was under, but it wasn't likely good for his mental health.

~~~
roopeshv
actually he didn't repress his grief. he understood that grief for her doesn't
change that she's dead, and other people bugging him about her death doesn't
make it any better. So he decides he might as well just continue doing what he
was doing, because how he deals with her death is not his colleagues concern

~~~
zwischenzug
Have you read Genius by Gleick? His response to his wife's death was to
frenziedly throw himself into work and systematically abuse women. The idea
that his grief was not being repressed doesn't stand up.

Again, very understandable in an ambitious young man growing up in the shadow
of war with all that responsibility on his shoulders. But not what you'd call
a healthy grieving process.

~~~
Hinrik
>and systematically abuse women

Really?

~~~
zwischenzug
You can read the bios yourself. After Arline he went on his "debug how to
sleep with women binge" and then slept with his students' wives. Most
complained that none of them could live up to his dead wife, and the more ill-
treated ones wrote to the others saying that the best way to get out of a
Feynman relationship was to make a few dollars by claiming to have missed your
period.

This is all passed over quite briefly in Genius, but you'll find more evidence
elsewhere.

------
lifeisstillgood
The letter to his dead wife is deeply touching, and the last sentence made me
laugh and cry.

It seems important to note that those of great acheivement still feel normal
human emotions, and those who aspire to great acheivement should not try to
avoid feeling normal human emotions - lest they become, well the president of
Syria.

Thank you danso.

~~~
slurgfest
Although I liked this post, I don't know who is trying to avoid feeling normal
human emotions. Is this directed at some group?

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Bit late but ...

There is a meme that great scientists, all great achievers, are somewhat
other, not normal, aloof unfeeling cold calculating machines. That's how they
do it. The story of the stopped clock could be used to bolster that fallacy

The letter clearly, lucidly, funnily, and touchingly blows apart any concept
that Feynmann was cold unfeeling or somehow other.

Just seemed important to note that great achievement is not incompatible with
great passion and humanity. C.f. The president of Syria for how MIT to do it.

------
inetsee
If the software would let me, I would spend all my karma points to upvote this
post.

I recently (yesterday) suffered the loss of a loved one, and reading Feynman's
letter to his late wife is one of the few things giving me comfort right now.

------
akg
Feynman has a unique insight and perspective of the world.

One of the lessons I learned from him, and I can't find the quote now, but
when he was diagnosed with cancer he had this to say:

Everyone knows that they will one day die, yet they find a way to "live" life
despite that fact. They have ambitions, dreams, desires. The only difference
for me is that that the time is now limited. Why would I be depressed about
that when the basic principle of life is the same. The only difference for me
is that the time is shortened. It's simply a matter of scale, but the
philosophical conundrum remains the same.

------
hbvybwkjn
While reading the letter to his wife I felt a sense of guilt and stopped
reading. Why is it that after a person's passing their right to privacy is no
longer respected? While they are alive to read and publish such information
without consent would be bad, but why is it OK after their passing? Even if
they will not feel the pain of the invasion of privacy, that does not give
someone else the right to expose such information. I think for the good of the
group should only extend until it starting impinging on the rights of the
individual.

~~~
danso
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you, because it's hard to make any
argument given with how you frame the question. What does it mean that the
deceased Feynman has rights? In life, it would be illegal (in America) for a
hospital to disclose that he once came in for a flu shot. But it is completely
legal to get a coroners report which explains the cause of death and all other
related medical details. It doesn't make sense to discuss "rights" because
Feynman as an alive human is not the same as Feynman dead.

I know you're not talking about legal matters, but some of the issues behind
libel and speech law are derived in part from moral concerns.

As a side note, it's not all together clear that it would be illegal to
publish something like this were he still alive, as he would be considered a
person of public interest.

Now, the issue of whether it's bad? That's strictly a taste thing. Had the
author of e biography chosen to publish any and all seedy letters found in
Feynman's private collection, I think we could agree that that is "bad", as
in, bad taste...but I think the case could be made that the publishing of this
type of personal letter is not in that same category, in terms of taste

~~~
Drbble
The way we treat agreements after death affects how much trust the living
place in each other.

------
geon
I hardly consider myself cold or heartless scientiffic, but I cannot imagine
why someone would give up all reason and curiosity applied to the moment
surroumding a persons death.

If a clock stopped at the time of my wifes death, just how would it be natural
to attribute it to something supernatural if I wouldn't usually do that?

Just because it is a highly emotional moment?

~~~
danso
Concerning young love, there's the perception that the world practically
begins and ends with your partner. Given that she was assigned a tragic and
uncommon fate, would it be surprising to think that Feynman, or anyone, might
be more vulnerable to accepting the "magical" explanation, that the
energy/soul of this unique being left a telekinetic sign?

Its not just that you wouldn't, on average, consider a supernatural
explanation. It's that the stopping of a clock at any particular moment is
rare and the death of your first true love...is, well, also extremely rare. A
scientific mind, under some stress, might cede to the supernatural comfort by
framing it as: "well, the probability of those two events happening at
once"...and this framing would be made even easier given the overwhelming
acceptance of such an event being supernatural by a 1940s-era society

------
Nevaeh
Good read, but there's so much more to the story.

His book "What do you care what other people think" is a homage to Arlene,
partly because Feynman made the fatal mistake of trusting the doctor's
judgement to disregard the blatantly obvious diagnosis. He wrote about his
experience in much more detail here:

Part 1: <http://i.imgur.com/CSNop.png>

Part 2: <http://i.imgur.com/7mDTW.png>

He was depressed for a while but eventually his love for physics helped him
recover. Feynman is the most logical and happiest human I have ever seen. Hans
Bethe once said, "Feynman depressed is just a little more cheerful then any
other person when he is exuberant."

Feynman's magnificent exuberance and puzzle solving enthusiasm remained up
until his last days, where his coworker Christopher Sykes remarked "Look at
this man. He faces the abyss. He doesn't know whether he is going to live
through this week. But he was consumed by it, and he worked on it all day
long...." <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzg1CU8t9nw#t=1h11m33s>

A few days before his second operation, Feynman sang a bongos song about
orange juice, an amusing take of Linus Pauling's advice to possibly cure his
cancer. Just look at his smile at the end of this video:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKTSaezB4p8>

I would also like to add that on Feynman's last days at the hospital, his last
words to his artist friend Jirayr was "Don't worry about anything, go out and
have a good time!" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzg1CU8t9nw#t=1h32m15s>

Anyone who thinks of Feynman as a cold-hearted scientist is incredibly
mistaken.

------
swombat
It's interesting that the author of this article regards this as, somehow,
evidence that Feynman was "scientific till the end". What I read here is an
article about a man who so deeply felt love for another human being that he
abandoned any rationality on the topic and loved her even long after she was
dead, to the exclusion of others.

What's the science in that?

To me, this story illustrates that Feynman was a man of deeper beliefs than
most religious people, and what the story illustrates, really, is that there
is absolutely no contradiction between having a highly rational, scientific
mindset and yet having very deep beliefs that transcend the reductionist
scientific mindset that some hardcore atheist propose is "the way forward".

Science and beliefs can coexist perfectly well, as they did in Feynman,
Einstein, and many other of our greatest scientists.

~~~
Tichy
Why should it be irrational to love somebody after their death? You can still
listen inside of you and discover more things about that person - what you
missed, what you would wish to do with them now, whatever. I don't think that
requires some mystical belief that the dead person's spirit is somehow still
around (other than in your own neurons).

Humans are no "classical computers", we have emotions and desires built in
(for a purpose, but still). It is not necessarily rational trying to suppress
those and aiming to become as much as a calculator as possible. You could as
well just go for the ride and see where it takes you.

~~~
swombat
It is not irrational to love someone after their death, but it is fairly
irrational to refuse to love anyone else after your wife dies and it is very
irrational to write sealed letters to a dead person.

It shows that Feynman was quite willing and able to surrender to irrational
behaviour when he wanted to. The difference between Feynman and the
superstitious man was not a rejection of things irrational, but a conscious
control over when to give in to the irrationality and when to remain
scientific.

Of course, you might say that this is only sensible - but many people who take
a reductionist view ("there is nothing beyond the material") explicitly reject
this balance.

~~~
eurleif
>it is very irrational to write sealed letters to a dead person.

It seems irrational when you presume that the only purpose of a letter is to
be read by the recipient. But writing a letter can help clarify your own
thoughts and feelings, which is a perfectly rational thing to want to do.

~~~
swombat
You can explain anything if you try hard enough, even the bible...

~~~
eurleif
Have you really never written something down just to clarify your thoughts?
It's legitimately useful. Usually I don't do it by writing a letter to
someone, but I could definitely see doing that in Feynman's situation.

------
jpdoctor
> _His dogged investigation of the Challenger explosion is the most generally
> well-known demonstration of his mindset._

IIRC: In his second book ("What do you care what other people think"), he
essentially admits he was a tool in this instance.

One of the generals had figured it out, but was politically unable to point
the finger. He lead Feynman to the issue, who then ran with it.

(I can't remember his name. He opens with "Copilot to pilot: Comb your hair"
or some such.)

~~~
danso
This is true. This is why I say "generally well-known", as in, as the public
sees it. But I would also argue that in spirit, Feynman showed a high level of
determination and focus to get to the bottom of things. As it happened, the
famous revelation was given to him.

------
bromagosa
A really beautiful article. It made me decide to put "What Do You Care What
Other People Think?" first in my next-to-read list.

------
edawerd
I love peeking deeper into the hearts and minds of superhuman people and
discovering just how human they really are.

