4 ms·

A great read. Something that stuck with me throughout the article was that the concept of "you can do anything" was almost masked by the fact that he had place

by volkk 10y ago

A great read. Something that stuck with me throughout the article was that the concept of "you can do anything" was almost masked by the fact that he had placed all of his "apples" into one basket--Rajeev. Of course this was a different time, and I think it highlights just how important the internet and technology have become in our professional success. Had this been present day, Henderson could have tried to make use of others through collaboration, just as Rajeev himself pointed out towards the end. Somewhere in the article he mentioned his doubts within his teacher, and that's something that I think most people need to realize. Teachers are just people with their own faults. Nowhere does it state that your teacher is going to know the answer to your success. If you continually find yourself lost and doubtful, you should extend your reach and try to seek help from other minds as well. He was on a journey with thousands of forks within thousands of roads, and simply locking yourself in a room for 15 hours a day, essentially brute forcing different paths isn't a healthy way of going about research or anything in life.

dm3730 10y ago
> he had placed all of his "apples" into one basket--Rajeev That sense of "blaming" doesn't come across in the article. I'm wondering why you would choose to see it that way.
- volkk 10y ago
  I wouldn't deem my sentence as blaming. But I don't think collaborating with what reads from the article with one person (read: Rajeev) as an ambitious yet confused grad student, for what seemed as years, is the right way to go about seeking the Holy Grail. Especially considering the Holy Grail was something arbitrary Henderson had concocted in his head.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Quantum gravity is an arbitrary goal concocted by the author?
    - kordless 10y ago
      David Bohm posited reality is what we think and talk about. Private vs. Public, if you will. I would say quantum gravity is an arbitrary goal concocted by humanity, but that initial idea had to come from someone's brain to kick it off the concoction.
      - yarou 10y ago
        Reality is immaterial without context. Can you imagine a universe without qualia? I cannot.
        dhruvmittal 10y ago
        [joke about that imagination being your own subjective experience here]
        yarou 10y ago
        Let me clarify what I meant. I could be misreading materialism, but the way I understand it is that the universe is essentially a runtime with statically-compiled, singleton objects. The behavior for said objects is determined at runtime.
        jayajay 10y ago
        [ joke abut how people oversimplify the universe differently depending on their field of study ]
      - nearly_there 10y ago
        This quote could be shortened I guess, but on the other hand, people could do worse than read the whole book, just that bit talking about the automation of labour in passing is way beyond even the more serious attempts to discuss it today, and the "hopeless confusion" and "parroting" she mentions is on full display on HN... anyway, regarding language, the private and the public: From "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, 1958 ( http://sduk.us/afterwork/arendt_the_human_condition.pdf http://sduk.us/afterwork/arendt_the_human_condition.pdf ) > This future man, whom the scientists tell us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself. There is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on earth. The question is only whether we wish to use our new scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of professional scientists or professional politicians. > While such possibilities still may lie in a distant future, the first boomerang effects of science's great triumphs have made themselves felt in a crisis within the natural sciences themselves. The trouble concerns the fact that the "truths" of the modern scientific world view, though they can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas and proved technologically, will no longer lend themselves to normal expression in speech and thought. The moment these "truths" are spoken of conceptually and coherently, the resulting statements will be "not perhaps as meaningless as a 'triangular circle,' but much more so than a 'winged lion' " (Erwin Schrodinger). We do not yet know whether this situation is final. But it could be that we, who are earth-bound creatures and have begun to act as though we were dwellers of the universe, will forever be unable to understand, that is, to think and speak about the things which nevertheless we are able to do. In this case, it would be as though our brain, which constitutes the physical, material condition of our thoughts, were unable to follow what we do, so that from now on we would indeed need artificial machines to do our thinking and speaking. If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is. > However, even apart from these last and yet uncertain consequences, the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a "language" of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech. The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of "character"—that they did not refuse to develop atomic weapons—or their naivete — that they did not understand that once these weapons were developed they would be the last to be consulted about their use -— but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves.
crispyambulance 10y ago
Henderson seems a bit melancholic but he did just fine. Should it really matter to him or anyone else that he "quit" Physics? I don't think so. Too many people get hung up on having a continuous unbroken progression of career advancement in one "field" whatever it is. You CAN do anything. And that includes changing your mind, your job, and your values. He didn't stick with Physics after getting his PHD... so what?
- smhost 10y ago
  That's what a dream is, though, isn't it? You decide that something matters to you. Sure, you can change your mind, but then the dream goes away, and it hurts to have your dreams crushed. I think that's really all he's saying.
- makeset 10y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Sounds like he matched up with a pretty great advisor (good person, good manager, helpful, smart), worked on interesting problems, made progress on some, published, and graduated. To boot, when he decided to move on, his physics skills made him highly employable in the financial industry. I'd call that a success story as far as grad school goes.
  - daxfohl 10y ago
    Funny thing is that when he asked Rajeev why he had failed, Rajeev had probably been asking himself the same question for years. A lifetime dedicated to cyclotomic fiber bundles that will probably end up in the dustbin of history. If your only measure of success is to do something truly transformative, well, you've got Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and then everyone else who has tried and failed, so good luck. Wall Street was probably the better choice. And it could have turned into a Swiss patent office thing that formal academia would have denied anyway. Grass is always greener on the other side.

by volkk 10y ago

dm3730 10y ago

> he had placed all of his "apples" into one basket--Rajeev That sense of "blaming" doesn't come across in the article. I'm wondering why you would choose to see it that way.

volkk 10y ago
I wouldn't deem my sentence as blaming. But I don't think collaborating with what reads from the article with one person (read: Rajeev) as an ambitious yet confused grad student, for what seemed as years, is the right way to go about seeking the Holy Grail. Especially considering the Holy Grail was something arbitrary Henderson had concocted in his head.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Quantum gravity is an arbitrary goal concocted by the author?
  - kordless 10y ago
    David Bohm posited reality is what we think and talk about. Private vs. Public, if you will. I would say quantum gravity is an arbitrary goal concocted by humanity, but that initial idea had to come from someone's brain to kick it off the concoction.
    - yarou 10y ago
      Reality is immaterial without context. Can you imagine a universe without qualia? I cannot.
      - dhruvmittal 10y ago
        [joke about that imagination being your own subjective experience here]
        yarou 10y ago
        Let me clarify what I meant. I could be misreading materialism, but the way I understand it is that the universe is essentially a runtime with statically-compiled, singleton objects. The behavior for said objects is determined at runtime.
        jayajay 10y ago
        [ joke abut how people oversimplify the universe differently depending on their field of study ]
    - nearly_there 10y ago
      This quote could be shortened I guess, but on the other hand, people could do worse than read the whole book, just that bit talking about the automation of labour in passing is way beyond even the more serious attempts to discuss it today, and the "hopeless confusion" and "parroting" she mentions is on full display on HN... anyway, regarding language, the private and the public: From "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, 1958 ( http://sduk.us/afterwork/arendt_the_human_condition.pdf http://sduk.us/afterwork/arendt_the_human_condition.pdf ) > This future man, whom the scientists tell us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself. There is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on earth. The question is only whether we wish to use our new scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of professional scientists or professional politicians. > While such possibilities still may lie in a distant future, the first boomerang effects of science's great triumphs have made themselves felt in a crisis within the natural sciences themselves. The trouble concerns the fact that the "truths" of the modern scientific world view, though they can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas and proved technologically, will no longer lend themselves to normal expression in speech and thought. The moment these "truths" are spoken of conceptually and coherently, the resulting statements will be "not perhaps as meaningless as a 'triangular circle,' but much more so than a 'winged lion' " (Erwin Schrodinger). We do not yet know whether this situation is final. But it could be that we, who are earth-bound creatures and have begun to act as though we were dwellers of the universe, will forever be unable to understand, that is, to think and speak about the things which nevertheless we are able to do. In this case, it would be as though our brain, which constitutes the physical, material condition of our thoughts, were unable to follow what we do, so that from now on we would indeed need artificial machines to do our thinking and speaking. If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is. > However, even apart from these last and yet uncertain consequences, the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a "language" of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech. The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of "character"—that they did not refuse to develop atomic weapons—or their naivete — that they did not understand that once these weapons were developed they would be the last to be consulted about their use -— but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves.

crispyambulance 10y ago

Henderson seems a bit melancholic but he did just fine. Should it really matter to him or anyone else that he "quit" Physics? I don't think so. Too many people get hung up on having a continuous unbroken progression of career advancement in one "field" whatever it is. You CAN do anything. And that includes changing your mind, your job, and your values. He didn't stick with Physics after getting his PHD... so what?

smhost 10y ago
That's what a dream is, though, isn't it? You decide that something matters to you. Sure, you can change your mind, but then the dream goes away, and it hurts to have your dreams crushed. I think that's really all he's saying.
makeset 10y ago
My thoughts exactly. Sounds like he matched up with a pretty great advisor (good person, good manager, helpful, smart), worked on interesting problems, made progress on some, published, and graduated. To boot, when he decided to move on, his physics skills made him highly employable in the financial industry. I'd call that a success story as far as grad school goes.
- daxfohl 10y ago
  Funny thing is that when he asked Rajeev why he had failed, Rajeev had probably been asking himself the same question for years. A lifetime dedicated to cyclotomic fiber bundles that will probably end up in the dustbin of history. If your only measure of success is to do something truly transformative, well, you've got Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and then everyone else who has tried and failed, so good luck. Wall Street was probably the better choice. And it could have turned into a Swiss patent office thing that formal academia would have denied anyway. Grass is always greener on the other side.