“In 1980, just after Murray had turned 50, Margaret was diagnosed with cancer, and she died the following year. He became depressed: he had already won the Nobel prize and most other prizes and honors in physics, so he now turned to new fields to conquer. From his childhood onwards he had been interested in birds, nature and sustainability. He had long wanted to apply the mathematical principles of theoretical physics to other fields, especially those that dealt with biological phenomena. He was fascinated by language and its origins. Murray thought that future scientific development would involve the study of really complex phenomena: physics was not simple, but the origins of language or cognitive development were of a different order of complexity. With his wealth of contacts, he set about obtaining funds for the Santa Fe Institute, situated in the hills overlooking Santa Fe, which would study such problems. He left Caltech for the Santa Fe Institute in 1993 and settled in the city.”

— Norman Dombey (2019), “Murray Gell-Mann Obituary” [2]

“We don’t have to assume these principles as separate metaphysical postulates. They follow from the fundamental theory. They are what we call ‘emergent properties.’ You don’t need something more to get something more. That’s what emergence means. Life can emerge from physics and chemistry, plus a lot of accidents. The human mind can arise from neurobiology, and a lot of accidents. The way the chemical bond arises from physics and certain accidents. Doesn’t diminish the importance of these subjects, to know that they follow from more fundamental things, plus accidents. That’s a general rule, and it’s critically important to realize that. You don’t need something more in order to get something more. People keep asking that when they read my book, The Quark and the Jaguar, and they say ‘isn’t there something more beyond what you have there?’ Presumably they mean something supernatural. Anyway, there isn’t. (laughs) You don’t need something more to explain something more.”

— Murray Gell-Mann (2007), “Beauty and Truth in Physics” (Ѻ), TED talk, Mar

“I wonder what IQs some of the following would have: Edward Witten [1951-], Murray Gell-Mann, Richard Garwin [1928-], Marvin Minsky [1927-], Grigori Perelman [1966-], Saul Kripke [1940-], and Erik Demaine [1981-]. From years past who are no longer alive I would have likes to know what Kurt Godel's or Herbert Simon (one of the founders of AI as well as having a Nobel Prize in economics as well as the Turing award which can be thought of as the equivalent award for computer science), Gauss, Euler and many more listed already on this page but only as estimates.”

— Anon (2010), IQ: 200+ thread post (Feb 20), made from Newberg, Oregon

“Any listing of the 30+ smartest people ever without Murray Gell-Mann and John von Neumann is dubious at best.”

— tpsmith800 (2011), forum post at “IQ 200+ | Smartest person ever (4 of 4)” video

Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman, during interactions of which Gell-Mann reported to have observed the Feynman problem solving algorithm.

“Here’s my personal list for the title of greatest American physicist in history, in no particular order: Joseph Henry, Willard Gibbs, Albert Michelson, Robert Millikan, Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Julian Schwinger, Ernest Lawrence, Edward Witten [1951-], John Bardeen, John Slater, John Wheeler and Steven Weinberg. This list pales in comparison with an equivalent list of European physicists which would include names like Einstein, Dirac, Rutherford, Bohr, Pauli and Heisenberg; and this is just if we include twentieth-century physicists.”

— Ashutosh Jogalekar (2013), “Who’s the Greatest American Physicist in History” (Ѻ)

“Modern physics is governed by that magnificent and thoroughly confusing discipline called quantum mechanics that has survived all tests, is believed to be flawless, but one that nobody understands.”

— Murray Gell-Mann (1990), “Some Truer Method: Reflections on the Heritage of newton (pg. 51)