Scan barcode
mgouker's review against another edition
5.0
A survey of possible implementations of parallel universe implementations and how we might distinguish them. This is a great jumping off point for all of the different paths. I would have liked to see more about Emergence Theory.
11corvus11's review against another edition
5.0
This book is 8 years old so parts of it are of course dated. For instance, evidence of gravitational waves has been found since its publication. But, there is still a lot to be gained. The book is definitely heavy and requires your attention. If you have never encountered these topics, you may have to repeat sections. I have and still repeated parts.
That said, Greene wrote the book so that a wider audience could access it and he did an excellent job executing that intention. He gives the reader the opportunity to skip ahead if they already know something or even if they find a topic too saturating. He does his best to describe complex subjects to someone who knows little to nothing about them. He structures the book so that you can get through the whole thing and generally follow along even if you don't fully grasp every element of the text.
Greene is the master of analogy and regularly uses easy to understand examples to explain complex and outstanding concepts. I saw Greene on a talk show discussing the discovery of gravitational wave evidence and I'm curious about how this book would read were it revised with new discoveries. Im not sharp enough to draw all those conclusions myself but do grasp somewhat what is now different in our understandings of possible multiverses among other things.
When I was a child I would lay awake at night concerned about what was outside the universe. My dad taught me it was a finite thing. What was nothing? How could there be nothing outside of something? Somehow the near infinite possibilities of multiverses is a less disconcerting thought for the human mind.
Also, Greene being an ethical vegan is a nice plus. He doesn't discuss it in this book, but I like that a man this logical often includes emotional reasoning as connected and valid.
That said, Greene wrote the book so that a wider audience could access it and he did an excellent job executing that intention. He gives the reader the opportunity to skip ahead if they already know something or even if they find a topic too saturating. He does his best to describe complex subjects to someone who knows little to nothing about them. He structures the book so that you can get through the whole thing and generally follow along even if you don't fully grasp every element of the text.
Greene is the master of analogy and regularly uses easy to understand examples to explain complex and outstanding concepts. I saw Greene on a talk show discussing the discovery of gravitational wave evidence and I'm curious about how this book would read were it revised with new discoveries. Im not sharp enough to draw all those conclusions myself but do grasp somewhat what is now different in our understandings of possible multiverses among other things.
When I was a child I would lay awake at night concerned about what was outside the universe. My dad taught me it was a finite thing. What was nothing? How could there be nothing outside of something? Somehow the near infinite possibilities of multiverses is a less disconcerting thought for the human mind.
Also, Greene being an ethical vegan is a nice plus. He doesn't discuss it in this book, but I like that a man this logical often includes emotional reasoning as connected and valid.
rymdkejsaren's review against another edition
4.0
My head hurts even more*.
*See my review of Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe.
*See my review of Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe.
denilson_sousa's review against another edition
Parei no início do capítulo 8 aos 51% do livro.
tomrrandall's review against another edition
4.0
Really liked this one. A narrower theme than his earlier books, which improved the final product significantly.
johnbreeden's review against another edition
4.0
As always, I enjoy and admire Brian Greene's extensive knowledge and ability to draw down extremely difficult ideas into real-world presentations. For that reason, I am very impressed with this book. At the same time, it is not an easy read/listen. Brian Greene goes to great lengths to give insight into fundamentals such as String Theory. The difficulty is that by nature this must be brief. Having read his past works, I have a basic understanding that can be carried over into this discussion. I love the style and approach of this book. I also acknowledge that it isn't for everyone.
My final thought is that anyone interested in this topic - the multiverse - should first start with Brian's other works to lay a foundation before approaching this. It is well worth the extra effort in order to engage with such scientific exploration.
My final thought is that anyone interested in this topic - the multiverse - should first start with Brian's other works to lay a foundation before approaching this. It is well worth the extra effort in order to engage with such scientific exploration.
hank's review against another edition
4.0
The science was tough at times but fascinating. The conclusions were thought provoking and I loved the book. 4 stars because it was so dense I didn't love all of it.
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
This book wouldn't be great without his first two. Or maybe it would, but it would seem like a fantasy ride in some bologna-artist's woo-science book. It's basically a survey of the different multiverse ideas out there - all the different ways people have dreamed up multiple universes.
Given the scientific gravitas Brian Greene is able to bring, though, one has to take these ideas seriously. At least, as seriously as one can. I'm not a physicist, but I have taken a statistics course or two, and the thinking about how we can test some ideas of multiple universes by looking at our own universe make absolutely no sense to me. Our universe is one data point. It gives you zero degrees of freedom. There is no hypothesis one could reject by theorizing, as Greene seems to do, that multiverses where a universe like ours would be more likely, and then turning around and looking at the data from our universe.
Whether or not he's right about testability, though, even constructing hypotheses is a portion of science. Science is the process of developing and testing hypotheses. There's nothing wrong with developing hypotheses you have no idea how to test, and calling it a scientific step. OK, so we have no idea how to test, or if we can. Don't let that limit the process of developing hypotheses.
Two more nitpicks (I gave this 5 stars, too - why am I only complaining? I guess I found the book so intriguing and engaging that I want to talk back to it):
1) He never talked about the fact that many of these multiverse theories are not mutually exclusive - bubbles in the expansion of space and simulated multiverses could obviously coexist, as could many of the others.
2) In the ultimate universe model, the universe with nothing in it obviously exists - inasmuch as it needs to. We have to accept that one, just like we have to accept the empty set in every set of subsets ever.
Anyway, good book. I recommend "The Elegant Universe" and "Fabric of the Cosmos" before this, but I guess it would work on its own, too.
Given the scientific gravitas Brian Greene is able to bring, though, one has to take these ideas seriously. At least, as seriously as one can. I'm not a physicist, but I have taken a statistics course or two, and the thinking about how we can test some ideas of multiple universes by looking at our own universe make absolutely no sense to me. Our universe is one data point. It gives you zero degrees of freedom. There is no hypothesis one could reject by theorizing, as Greene seems to do, that multiverses where a universe like ours would be more likely, and then turning around and looking at the data from our universe.
Whether or not he's right about testability, though, even constructing hypotheses is a portion of science. Science is the process of developing and testing hypotheses. There's nothing wrong with developing hypotheses you have no idea how to test, and calling it a scientific step. OK, so we have no idea how to test, or if we can. Don't let that limit the process of developing hypotheses.
Two more nitpicks (I gave this 5 stars, too - why am I only complaining? I guess I found the book so intriguing and engaging that I want to talk back to it):
1) He never talked about the fact that many of these multiverse theories are not mutually exclusive - bubbles in the expansion of space and simulated multiverses could obviously coexist, as could many of the others.
2) In the ultimate universe model, the universe with nothing in it obviously exists - inasmuch as it needs to. We have to accept that one, just like we have to accept the empty set in every set of subsets ever.
Anyway, good book. I recommend "The Elegant Universe" and "Fabric of the Cosmos" before this, but I guess it would work on its own, too.