Scan barcode
jsilverman84's review against another edition
5.0
This book is really "out there," and I mean that in the best possible way. Tegmark leads you to think differently about the nature of the universe and life on earth, and I think that this may be one of the highest compliments that I can pay to an author and book. The subject matter ranges from an overview of some of Tegmark's research and what his contribution has been to science. The book then veers off into the speculative realm to explore some of the potential implications of theoretical physics. I highly recommend this book to anybody looking for a break from mainstream thinking about the cosmos.
branch_c's review against another edition
3.0
It seems clear to me that Tegmark is a brilliant physicist and an innovative thinker. He’s also a decent writer, although this book does sometimes come across as a bit too informal in its efforts to reach a non-scientific audience. But Tegmark provides a fascinating tour of cosmology in order to explain what’s known about reality, and in order to build a foundation for his own idea: that the universe is literally a mathematical construct.
He admits that this is a minority view and that it will take a lot to convince most people of this, then he makes his argument as convincing as possible. And the thing is, it’s tough for those of us without Tegmark’s background and expertise in physics and mathematics to effectively counter his arguments.
But if I were to try, I would start by questioning one of his key assertions: “if you believe in an external reality Independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure.” (p. 260) Tegmark justifies this by claiming that a reality independent of humans would have to have a description that’s “expressible in a form that’s devoid of any human baggage”. But this seems wrong to me. While a nonhuman entity such as an alien or an AI might not use human-specific terminology to convey cosmological concepts, that doesn’t mean they aren’t expressing the same concepts. The “human baggage” is just an artifact of one way of describing the universe; other entities would substitute their own baggage. So I don’t buy this justification for concluding that pure mathematics must be the nature of reality.
Not only that, I feel that what Tegmark is trying to do here really comes down to a terminology problem. We use the word “mathematics” to mean something specific: an abstract system of numbers and relationship rules that can be used to describe things and processes in the world. So by definition, it isn’t itself a concrete thing or process in the world. But Tegmark is making an equivalence between the two, and given that he knows far more math and physics than I do, he’s probably right, in some sense. The problem is that if he’s right, then we would need a different word for what he’s describing: a system of numbers and relationships that forms the underlying reality of the physical word. That’s just not what most people mean when we use the word mathematics, which is necessarily abstract and non-physical.
I’ll leave it at that, since I don’t feel qualified to formally dispute the conclusions. I will just also note that the author acknowledges grants from, among others, the Templeton Foundation, which for me is a red flag for science writing, given that foundation’s intention to fund research in the interest of reconciling science and religion.
Regardless of the speculative nature of the book’s main thesis, it’s nevertheless enjoyable to read. In particular, it covers a lot of ground in its discussion of the various levels of multiverses, and even if the level IV mathematical one is a stretch, the first three levels are even harder to argue against. Also, Tegmark’s analysis of the unfortunate state of human affairs when thinking about the future is incisively accurate; likewise, his optimism and genuine enthusiasm for the future if we manage to fix our current situation is refreshing.
He admits that this is a minority view and that it will take a lot to convince most people of this, then he makes his argument as convincing as possible. And the thing is, it’s tough for those of us without Tegmark’s background and expertise in physics and mathematics to effectively counter his arguments.
But if I were to try, I would start by questioning one of his key assertions: “if you believe in an external reality Independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure.” (p. 260) Tegmark justifies this by claiming that a reality independent of humans would have to have a description that’s “expressible in a form that’s devoid of any human baggage”. But this seems wrong to me. While a nonhuman entity such as an alien or an AI might not use human-specific terminology to convey cosmological concepts, that doesn’t mean they aren’t expressing the same concepts. The “human baggage” is just an artifact of one way of describing the universe; other entities would substitute their own baggage. So I don’t buy this justification for concluding that pure mathematics must be the nature of reality.
Not only that, I feel that what Tegmark is trying to do here really comes down to a terminology problem. We use the word “mathematics” to mean something specific: an abstract system of numbers and relationship rules that can be used to describe things and processes in the world. So by definition, it isn’t itself a concrete thing or process in the world. But Tegmark is making an equivalence between the two, and given that he knows far more math and physics than I do, he’s probably right, in some sense. The problem is that if he’s right, then we would need a different word for what he’s describing: a system of numbers and relationships that forms the underlying reality of the physical word. That’s just not what most people mean when we use the word mathematics, which is necessarily abstract and non-physical.
I’ll leave it at that, since I don’t feel qualified to formally dispute the conclusions. I will just also note that the author acknowledges grants from, among others, the Templeton Foundation, which for me is a red flag for science writing, given that foundation’s intention to fund research in the interest of reconciling science and religion.
Regardless of the speculative nature of the book’s main thesis, it’s nevertheless enjoyable to read. In particular, it covers a lot of ground in its discussion of the various levels of multiverses, and even if the level IV mathematical one is a stretch, the first three levels are even harder to argue against. Also, Tegmark’s analysis of the unfortunate state of human affairs when thinking about the future is incisively accurate; likewise, his optimism and genuine enthusiasm for the future if we manage to fix our current situation is refreshing.
daed's review against another edition
2.0
Al principio es muy bueno, pero luego se sumerge en el área especulativa y además de aburrido, se vuelve muy confuso. Por momentos recupera el encanto, pero no le alcanza para convertirse en una grata lectura.
tilda_bernhardt's review against another edition
4.0
”our universe doesn’t give life meaning, but life gives our universe meaning”
charliereadsalot's review against another edition
4.0
4 STARS
This book was legitimately mind-boggling. Yes, pretty much like everyone else, I had heard about parallel universes that are considered scientifically but nothing could have prepared me for what I read in this book. Granted, Tegmark himself admits his claims are out there and highly controversial but I was very fascinated with his conviction and I have to give it to him, his explanations and the conclusions he draws from them make sense. (Naturally, I have not spend any time looking up what people say against his ideas, only getting glimpses through some mentions in this book.)
It took me a loooong time to read this because it was incredibly dense with scientic concepts I had to wrap my head around and with frankly outlandish theories of multiverses on different levels that are beyond anything I had ever thought about. Needless to say that I absolutely loved every second of this journey and the exploring the questions posed in the text with even my limited knowledge. So as much as this book is about physics and mathematics, I found it was about equally much philosophical.
For anyone who might be interested in Tegmarks ideas but doesn't want to read 400 pages of densely written text, I would recommend his interview / discussion with Brian Greene on the World Science Fest Youtube channel [here] which summarizes a whole bunch of the ideas discussed in the book and Brian Greene is a nice opposing pole (besides being a fantastic moderator).
Basically, this book features everything, from cosmology to quantum mechanics, and that eventually leads to the exploration of the Level I, II, III and IV multiverses. It was incredibly interesting and I'm fully intending to check out s0me of the recommended further reading. Additionally, while it covered so many different things and admittedly becomes very. for lack of a better word, mind-boggling, it was written very clearly, ideas were clearly outlined and discussed and the chapter structure helped that a lot. For those interested in the more mathematical proof, there were many references to journal articles with links and for those who understand concepts better with visuals, there were also graphics and tables on every second page.
I can definitely recommend picking this up (or watching the interview) and I already know that I need to find more literature on multiverses. (Michio Kaku pops into mind immediately). Also, shoutout to my friend for giving me this book for my birthday last year. It only took me a year to finish but it was well worth it! And it hadn't even been on my radar before.
This book was legitimately mind-boggling. Yes, pretty much like everyone else, I had heard about parallel universes that are considered scientifically but nothing could have prepared me for what I read in this book. Granted, Tegmark himself admits his claims are out there and highly controversial but I was very fascinated with his conviction and I have to give it to him, his explanations and the conclusions he draws from them make sense. (Naturally, I have not spend any time looking up what people say against his ideas, only getting glimpses through some mentions in this book.)
It took me a loooong time to read this because it was incredibly dense with scientic concepts I had to wrap my head around and with frankly outlandish theories of multiverses on different levels that are beyond anything I had ever thought about. Needless to say that I absolutely loved every second of this journey and the exploring the questions posed in the text with even my limited knowledge. So as much as this book is about physics and mathematics, I found it was about equally much philosophical.
For anyone who might be interested in Tegmarks ideas but doesn't want to read 400 pages of densely written text, I would recommend his interview / discussion with Brian Greene on the World Science Fest Youtube channel [here] which summarizes a whole bunch of the ideas discussed in the book and Brian Greene is a nice opposing pole (besides being a fantastic moderator).
Basically, this book features everything, from cosmology to quantum mechanics, and that eventually leads to the exploration of the Level I, II, III and IV multiverses. It was incredibly interesting and I'm fully intending to check out s0me of the recommended further reading. Additionally, while it covered so many different things and admittedly becomes very. for lack of a better word, mind-boggling, it was written very clearly, ideas were clearly outlined and discussed and the chapter structure helped that a lot. For those interested in the more mathematical proof, there were many references to journal articles with links and for those who understand concepts better with visuals, there were also graphics and tables on every second page.
I can definitely recommend picking this up (or watching the interview) and I already know that I need to find more literature on multiverses. (Michio Kaku pops into mind immediately). Also, shoutout to my friend for giving me this book for my birthday last year. It only took me a year to finish but it was well worth it! And it hadn't even been on my radar before.
simont24's review against another edition
4.0
Overall it was really interesting but a few chapters completely lost me...i think continuous prose isn't the best way to present some of this information. Anyway it's recommended, just take your time with it!