As it happens, I am preoccupied with other things than my site, and therefore there was no Nederlog yesterday and there is today one that consists mostly of links, though I will give some comments.
It so happens that I like real science and mathematics, of which interests possibly too little appears in Nederlog, but then one reason is that there are people who are not ill, and who studied and teach it, who do it very well.
As it happens, much in today's Nederlog was picked up from an excellent site by Christopher Pickover, who has a Ph.D. in bio-chemistry and biophysics, while he works for IBM and (from Wikipedia, as is the last link) his
primary interest is in finding new ways to expand creativity by melding art, science, mathematics, and other seemingly disparate areas of human endeavor.
His site is here:
and it has lots of interesting, amusing, beautiful and amazing things of many kinds, though most touch on physics, biology or mathematics.
So here are some pickings, mostly or all from Pickovers' site, though I had seen some before, notably the first item:
Bertrand Russell's message to the future
This links to a site with text and a part of a considerably longer interview on film that was made with Russell in 1959, that I saw all of because it is (or at least was, and certainly should be) on Youtube.
His message to the future counsels intellectually a very high regard for truth, which I agree with it, and morally recommends love, that many people probably will like, but that I consider naive, given human history: People shouldn't learn to love each other, but to tolerate each other. Also, it is unwise to ask from them what they don't have the requisite talents for.
But it is a fine bit of film, and if you are interested at all in philosophy or Russell, I recommend you find the whole interview, since it is well done and quite interesting, while Russell was one of the great minds of the 20th Century.
Here is another great mind, introduced by his daughter and by the maker of several very fine interviews with him:
Michelle Feynman and Christopher Sykes introducing Richard Feynman
This is video from a so-called TED-talk, from a commemoration of Feynman. The second half has several bits from the interviews Sykes made with Feynman, although I think it a bit sad it ends with a part in which Feynman insists he wasn't special: Clearly, he was, and clearly very few people are born with talents that enable them to do what he did.
Then again, I think I saw most of the interviews Sykes made with Feynman that can be found on Youtube, and that I strongly recommend you to see: He was a great physicist and a great explainer.
Now for some music, another thing I don't write much about, among other things because I do not know much about it, don't read it, and I am not especially talented for it. I am a bit better than Feynman, in this respect, in that he claims to be unable to carry a tune, which I can, but which I also know truly musical people can do much better than I can.
Then again, I do like music, indeed of various kinds, and here is a musical video that is in several ways special
Novachord and theremin duet
This is special because it is quite special - eerie, angelic - sounding music, that is played on special instruments not many people have heard, named in the title, while the soundtrack was made in 1939.
Actually, I wouldn't be amazed if computers soon will change much about music - how it is played, what it sounds like, what is possible in it - as in fact they already have in recording and distributing it.
After some ear candy some eye candy:
Jeroen Bosch "Garden of Earthly Delights" in fine detail
This is in fact a very detailed jpg-reproduction of a great and amazing painting by Jeroen Bosch I have had a reproduction of in my house for quite a few years.
Finally, a fascinating finding that relates to the human abilities to represent and to keep representations of fiction apart from representations of reality: It may be the case not all can:
Reality distinguished from fiction by a fold in the brain
This is from a site with the summary of an article that provides some evidence, and also with some reasons for skepticism about it, but it is interesting idea, if only because it does relate to the physical facts that enable people to represent fantasy and fact, and because it is both frightening while explaining, in principle, rather a lot of history, if it turns out that, indeed, some folks aren't very good at distinguishing what they imagine to be, from what they - logically speaking - should or could know to be not imagined and real. (See: wishful thinking.)