Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.74 AVERAGE
3.74 AVERAGE
A great read, but the title can be somewhat misleading to mere science enthusiasts although still laymen such as myself. It never approaches the literal nothing one might be thinking of when purchasing this book.
However, again, it's a great read - and although Mr. Krauss's pocket table might be a little complicated to wrap your head around, it should be a must for anyone who wants to better understand the place we currently exist in.
However, again, it's a great read - and although Mr. Krauss's pocket table might be a little complicated to wrap your head around, it should be a must for anyone who wants to better understand the place we currently exist in.
Interesting book. I can't claim to grasp everything covered here, but it's definitely thought provoking and interesting. Enjoyable read.
appreciated the science part, but felt sorry for his lack of faith in the existence of our creator. just b/c one believes in the creator doesn't mean we can't do good science and asking questions that deepens our understanding of the things that were made in nature.
كون من لا شيء - لورنس كراوس .
الفكرة الأساسية للكتاب أكثر من مثيرة للإهتمام ..
تُختصر الفكرة الرئيسية بنشوء الكون من لا شيء أو من فضاء فارغ .
وكلتا النظريتان تنتهيان بنفس الشاكلة وإن اختلفت الزمن التي تستغرقها العملية النهائية .
هذا الكون نشأ من العدم وإلى العدم مآله.
الفكرة بحدّ ذاتها قد تبدو من وجهة نظر ما عبثية للغاية، ولكن بالنسبة للكاتب والفيزيائي لورنس كراوس فإن نشوء كون من لا شيء وبدون غاية تبدو مدهشة للغاية .
لكن دعونا لا ننسى أن هذه الإجابة ليست نهائية وقاطعة وأن العلم يتغير
ويتجدد كل يوم وتتغير مداركنا ووعينا بكوننا وبكل ماحولنا
وتتغير المعادلات والنتائج ومن الواضح كذلك أن أيامنا هذه هي أفضل الأوقات للحصول على مزيد من الأجوبة عن كوننا وكيف نشأ ... إلخ ..
هذا الكتاب كتبَ بلغة آسرة ومليئة بالشغف ما يجعله مختلفًا ومن كتبي المفضلة .
الفكرة الأساسية للكتاب أكثر من مثيرة للإهتمام ..
تُختصر الفكرة الرئيسية بنشوء الكون من لا شيء أو من فضاء فارغ .
وكلتا النظريتان تنتهيان بنفس الشاكلة وإن اختلفت الزمن التي تستغرقها العملية النهائية .
هذا الكون نشأ من العدم وإلى العدم مآله.
الفكرة بحدّ ذاتها قد تبدو من وجهة نظر ما عبثية للغاية، ولكن بالنسبة للكاتب والفيزيائي لورنس كراوس فإن نشوء كون من لا شيء وبدون غاية تبدو مدهشة للغاية .
لكن دعونا لا ننسى أن هذه الإجابة ليست نهائية وقاطعة وأن العلم يتغير
ويتجدد كل يوم وتتغير مداركنا ووعينا بكوننا وبكل ماحولنا
وتتغير المعادلات والنتائج ومن الواضح كذلك أن أيامنا هذه هي أفضل الأوقات للحصول على مزيد من الأجوبة عن كوننا وكيف نشأ ... إلخ ..
هذا الكتاب كتبَ بلغة آسرة ومليئة بالشغف ما يجعله مختلفًا ومن كتبي المفضلة .
informative
medium-paced
Listening to this book was cool, though I zoned out some. Instead of persistently rewinding, I absorbed what I could and may revisit it later. Dawkins's afterword was lovely. As other reviewers said, Krauss's Cosmology 101 was solid. His exploration of string theory was less so, but that wasn't the focus anyway. I enjoy ontology and science, but I think biological sciences are more my speed generally. Chemistry is hella-cool, but I usually think of it in terms of metaphor. Hence my majors in English and psychology and not anything useful :-)
Krauss is clearly brilliant. The book is ambitious (massive understatement), and well done. It's deliciously, intentionally hostile to religion. Not sure why I didn't give it a 5 other than I reserve 5's for books that either (a) drive me to tears, or (b) make me dizzy with enthusiasm for living and learning, or (c) both. This book got close but not quite (CBNQ). Take home message "nothing is unstable". Read it if you want to find out what that means.
"Something came from nothing, because nothing is highly unstable."
There is a deep sense of curiosity in most of us on how the universe came to be. If we manage to determine that, it would be the pinnacle of human intellect & achievement, I think. Lawrence argues in the book how science has progressed enough to explain how the universe grew from ‘Nothing’. A note of warning though – this ‘Nothing’ assumes the existence of space and the laws of physics already being in place. This (as the author notes as well), is not the ‘Nothing’ many of us will assume this to be. The absolute ‘Nothing’ which some or many of us understand differently also finds some limited discussion towards the end of the book.
The book traces the progress we have made in uncovering the mysteries of the universe – and with each new discovery, the role of God diminishes. Through the book, Lawrence expectedly takes several digs at theology. He states that scientific facts should not be ignored, and a ‘God of the gaps’ (attributing what science is yet to explain to God) is a poor concept as it in any case diminishes the role of God as understood by religion. I agree and think most people do accept this, but still find meaning in religion for personal growth and treat (or should as Joseph Campbell advises) a lot of what is stated in religious texts metaphorically (also Advaita Vedanta treats the concept of God very differently). Scientific evidence is very strong (such as with the cosmic microwave background radiation) that there was a big bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, and matter was created leading to what we see today.
I found the concepts of the flat, closed and open universe to be fascinating. The discussion around this and the implications for the future of the universe makes for very engrossing reading. We are most likely in a flat universe (though this is not conclusive) – light does not curve and the universe may not roll back onto itself. The author mentions that we are at the best possible time to determine the secrets of the universe, since as we go on – the expansion would tear apart galaxies and greatly diminish the remnants of the big bang. This is interesting – indicating we should be investing more in cosmology now.
As one would expect, it is not that the book has all the answers – after all science itself does not yet. The creation of the universe from nothing or the possibility of a multiverse finds some discussion towards the end of the book. There is some barely disguised disdain for string theory – which I share as well since it comes as force fitted, excessively complex and detached from reality to me.
I found parts of the book to be a bit dense / less readable, nor did I find much of the humor the synopsis of the book mentions.
The book is intellectually stimulating and does well to bring advances in cosmology together in a crisp narrative.
The book traces the progress we have made in uncovering the mysteries of the universe – and with each new discovery, the role of God diminishes. Through the book, Lawrence expectedly takes several digs at theology. He states that scientific facts should not be ignored, and a ‘God of the gaps’ (attributing what science is yet to explain to God) is a poor concept as it in any case diminishes the role of God as understood by religion. I agree and think most people do accept this, but still find meaning in religion for personal growth and treat (or should as Joseph Campbell advises) a lot of what is stated in religious texts metaphorically (also Advaita Vedanta treats the concept of God very differently). Scientific evidence is very strong (such as with the cosmic microwave background radiation) that there was a big bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, and matter was created leading to what we see today.
I found the concepts of the flat, closed and open universe to be fascinating. The discussion around this and the implications for the future of the universe makes for very engrossing reading. We are most likely in a flat universe (though this is not conclusive) – light does not curve and the universe may not roll back onto itself. The author mentions that we are at the best possible time to determine the secrets of the universe, since as we go on – the expansion would tear apart galaxies and greatly diminish the remnants of the big bang. This is interesting – indicating we should be investing more in cosmology now.
As one would expect, it is not that the book has all the answers – after all science itself does not yet. The creation of the universe from nothing or the possibility of a multiverse finds some discussion towards the end of the book. There is some barely disguised disdain for string theory – which I share as well since it comes as force fitted, excessively complex and detached from reality to me.
I found parts of the book to be a bit dense / less readable, nor did I find much of the humor the synopsis of the book mentions.
The book is intellectually stimulating and does well to bring advances in cosmology together in a crisp narrative.
The book is about what our understanding of modern cosmos is and how God relates to that. I cannot (or want to) dispute his scientific reasoning as I only have rudimentary knowledge around the issue and to think I could say anything based on that would be kidding myself. I liked the book. It was informative, comprehensive, funny at times, and had a clear purpose for argumentation. But there are two complaints.
Firstly, this book was messy at times, and I was a bit surprised at how huge portion Richard Dawkins afterword took (hah, I combined two complaints into one.) But this didn't bother me or affect my reading.
Secondly, I have always found it odd that religion(s) are simplified to the belief of God/gods. After getting my masters from Comparative Religion, I have thought of religion being more about group cohesion than anything else. Dogmatism and the rest don't really matter for the "common" believer. What they held dear to them are the traditions that combine them to their community. The little rituals that console them. And so on. Yes, the belief in one God who judge the believers and heathens is in the center of Judeo-Christian religions, but it is not the sole point. It is not the point of a wedding or funeral. The argument that disputing God's existence will make religions to cease is too farfetched for me. The rise of the New Age, self-help books, and spirituality (some combined with scientific belief and without God or gods) indicate that there is a need for meaning and belonging. And that is what religions are about for many who seek them. Also, the belief into God/gods are part of our brain structure and how we observe the world, see neuroscientific research done from religion or read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained for starters. I'm not saying don't have an argument about God's existence or that this book is wrong (or blasphemy as that is far away from what I think,) but what I'm trying to say is that religions are much more than their God or gods.
But to finish this review, this book wasn't about religion. It was about cosmos and existence of God and my second complaint is invalid and should be ignored. Krauss arguments against God are well made, but I don't see them as arguments against religion. Yet, what made me like this book was that finally someone knows how to form an argument!
Thank you for reading!
Firstly, this book was messy at times, and I was a bit surprised at how huge portion Richard Dawkins afterword took (hah, I combined two complaints into one.) But this didn't bother me or affect my reading.
Secondly, I have always found it odd that religion(s) are simplified to the belief of God/gods. After getting my masters from Comparative Religion, I have thought of religion being more about group cohesion than anything else. Dogmatism and the rest don't really matter for the "common" believer. What they held dear to them are the traditions that combine them to their community. The little rituals that console them. And so on. Yes, the belief in one God who judge the believers and heathens is in the center of Judeo-Christian religions, but it is not the sole point. It is not the point of a wedding or funeral. The argument that disputing God's existence will make religions to cease is too farfetched for me. The rise of the New Age, self-help books, and spirituality (some combined with scientific belief and without God or gods) indicate that there is a need for meaning and belonging. And that is what religions are about for many who seek them. Also, the belief into God/gods are part of our brain structure and how we observe the world, see neuroscientific research done from religion or read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained for starters. I'm not saying don't have an argument about God's existence or that this book is wrong (or blasphemy as that is far away from what I think,) but what I'm trying to say is that religions are much more than their God or gods.
But to finish this review, this book wasn't about religion. It was about cosmos and existence of God and my second complaint is invalid and should be ignored. Krauss arguments against God are well made, but I don't see them as arguments against religion. Yet, what made me like this book was that finally someone knows how to form an argument!
Thank you for reading!