Newton, the Man (1946) • Hacker News Board

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#11

Post by jbotz » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 12:42 PM UTC

This is a great story indeed, but I have to disagree with it in one respect. I do not think that Newton was the "last of the magicians" because I don't think you have to believe in a personal god in order to have the same sense that creation is a meaningful mystery with "clues laid about the world". Seeing "God" as an impersonal force or schema underlying existence (Spinoza's God) can have an equivalent effect on the inquisitive mind, and many great scientists to this day are driven to much the same treasure hunt as Newton was. It is very much in this sense that Einstein said famously that "God does not play dice".

The truth is that even today Existence remains a great mystery... the most fundamental questions, such as the meaning of quantum indeterminacy, whether or not infinity is a physical quantity, the ultimate nature of space and time, all remain as mysterious as they ever were, and anyone who is driven to explore them is thus as much a magician as Newton was.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#12

Post by justin66 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 12:57 PM UTC

vmurthy wrote: post #3

Hagiography aside, Newton, the Man was also mean-spirited and would go to great lengths to ensure his "opponents" would suffer. I remember reading that as President of the Royal Society, he politicized the Leibniz Calculus issue so much that even our politicians can pick up a lesson or two :-) [1] Why am I telling this? Well, I'd like people to realize that our heroes also have flaws and we don't fall to blind hero-w…

It's not a new observation. Stephen Hawking's biographical section on Newton in A Brief History of Time starts out "Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man."

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#13

Post by winchling » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #8

vmurthy wrote: post #3

Hagiography aside, Newton, the Man was also mean-spirited and would go to great lengths to ensure his "opponents" would suffer. I remember reading that as President of the Royal Society, he politicized the Leibniz Calculus issue so much that even our politicians can pick up a lesson or two :-) [1] Why am I telling this? Well, I'd like people to realize that our heroes also have flaws and we don't fall to blind hero-w…

Is there strong evidence that people don't understand this already? There are plenty of lists such as this one pointing out similar people who were immensely talented in some respect. https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-geniuses-shockingly-horrible-...

Yes. Can anyone name a nice scientific genius? It's not a coincidence that these rare individuals aren't agreeable, i.e. not unduly influenced by the concerns/ideas of people around them.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#14

Post by gerikson » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

masonic wrote: post #4

(authored by John Maynard Keynes)

That’s a good recommendation, thanks for the heads-up.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#15

Post by cr1895 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

winchling wrote: post #13

vixen99 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there strong evidence that people don't understand this already? There are plenty of lists such as this one pointing out similar people who were immensely talented in some respect. https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-geniuses-shockingly-horrible-...

Yes. Can anyone name a nice scientific genius? It's not a coincidence that these rare individuals aren't agreeable, i.e. not unduly influenced by the concerns/ideas of people around them.

Richard Feynman?

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#16

Post by philzook » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #15

winchling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Can anyone name a nice scientific genius? It's not a coincidence that these rare individuals aren't agreeable, i.e. not unduly influenced by the concerns/ideas of people around them.

Richard Feynman?

Hoo boy. I dunno. Of course I have never come close to meeting the man, but the stories make him seem incredibly cocky and willing to verbally slam people just for fun.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#17

Post by tw1010 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

This was likely posted because Michael Nielsen linked to it on his twitter, just for the historical record.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#18

Post by CDSlice » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:02 PM UTC

winchling wrote: post #13

vixen99 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there strong evidence that people don't understand this already? There are plenty of lists such as this one pointing out similar people who were immensely talented in some respect. https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-geniuses-shockingly-horrible-...

Yes. Can anyone name a nice scientific genius? It's not a coincidence that these rare individuals aren't agreeable, i.e. not unduly influenced by the concerns/ideas of people around them.

Michael Faraday? From the little I've read about him he seemed to be a pretty nice guy.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#19

Post by nik61 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #15

winchling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Can anyone name a nice scientific genius? It's not a coincidence that these rare individuals aren't agreeable, i.e. not unduly influenced by the concerns/ideas of people around them.

Richard Feynman?

A notorious philanderer, it is said, though I guess you may have to be nice to be one of those.

Re: Newton, the Man (1946)

#20

Post by liberte82 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

winchling wrote: post #13

vixen99 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there strong evidence that people don't understand this already? There are plenty of lists such as this one pointing out similar people who were immensely talented in some respect. https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-geniuses-shockingly-horrible-...

Yes. Can anyone name a nice scientific genius? It's not a coincidence that these rare individuals aren't agreeable, i.e. not unduly influenced by the concerns/ideas of people around them.

Einstein!