4 ms·

Well that's certainly one way to view it, but I am not sure whether it's how Feynman himself would have viewed it. To me there's an implication there that he do

Well that's certainly one way to view it, but I am not sure whether it's how Feynman himself would have viewed it. To me there's an implication there that he doesn't view atoms in this context as passive beings since Feynman was definitely not a passive kind of person. I think instead the line suggests that even the smallest possible part of the universe contains all the beauty and complexity of the entire universe as well as life itself. But you do make a fascinating argument. It's an interesting philosophical point to be sure. EDIT: Perhaps there is at least potential for resolution if we give up the classical definition of atoms (being the smallest indivisible parts) in favor of that of modern physics, in which not all atoms are created equal. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

archhn 4y ago
Yeah, I don't know--who does. The poem just struck me as nihilistic. If we are just star stuff in a forever bubbling and fomenting cauldron, it may be a view of reality that is hostile to life. What can console us against the slings and arrows of our outrageous existence if there is no substantial difference between us being dead or alive? If we are just a drop of goop in the cosmic cauldron, why should we not just kill ourselves when we face any discomforting challenge? Late for the bus? Kill yourself. Skipped over for promotion? Kill yourself. As a function of survival, we need some model of reality that helps us to continue living. And that means a model to help us justify suffering--essentially. I do not find such a model reflected by the poem in question; hence, I see it as an enemy to life--nihilistic.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]