Take a photo of a barcode or cover
rachaelbee0402 's review for:
Reality is Not What it Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity
by Carlo Rovelli
The only truly infinite thing is our ignorance. - p208
Despite the simplified language and straightforward boiled down content of this book, by the end there was still a large amount I was struggling to grasp. It was somewhat like being tossed a hot potato – I kept on brushing the edges of understanding and for a moment thinking I almost might get a hold of it, until suddenly it would leap out of my hands (and mind). Of course, it’s hard to tell the difference between not understanding something, and (at least partially) understanding it and having genuine questions about it. Too often I’ve associated questions with a lack of understanding, but often the opposite is true. (Plus, of course, questions and inquiry can only lead to further understanding.)
As well as explaining the most current and (so far) plausible theories explaining the nature and structure of the universe, space and time, I took two core messages away from this book that I hadn’t expected to come across when I first started reading. The first is the emphasis of science as a practice/study being not about certainty but about questioning, and the second (very much related to the first) is about how science is not some sacred study superior to other subjects like, say, the humanities.
To me it showed shows the importance of art and philosophy and humanities in terms of development and discovery etc (if indeed that's what people think 'really' counts): Einstein's genius came not through his mathematical ability (which was lacking) but his imagination to picture the world differently, and his constant questioning (he was th greatest critic and sceptic of his own work). Dante's conception of the world and heavens in the Paradiso as a 3-sphere was not due to science but an expression of his artistic/spiritual genius. This isn’t to say that science itself is narrow-minded – it is to say that genuine science does not present things as unchallenged facts but hypotheses and theories to be tested. Good scientists are as creative and out-of-the-box-thinking as philosophers, and shouldn't be confined by scientific theories any more than philosophers are confined by philosophical theories. Having the freedom and ability to think outside the box, into the realm of the bonkers, is what results in massive progress, it seems. Cherishing and encouraging creativity and arts and imaginative thinking can only be a good thing. Rovelli expresses this nicely in his own way on p88: 'Our culture is foolish to keep science and poetry separated: they are two tools to open our eyes to the complexity and beauty of the world.'
Other lines worth mentioning:
'To a wise man, the whole earth is open, because the true country of a virtuous soul is the entire universe.' - p25, words of Democritus
Even the greatest make mistakes and are prey to preconceived ideas. - p176-7 (after Einstein stubbornly refused to accept the idea of the universe expanding)
The nature of a man is not his internal structure but the network of personal, familial and social interactions within which he exists. - p227
A scientist is someone who lives immersed in the awareness of our deep ignorance, in direct contact with our own innumerable limits, with the limits of our understanding. - p230
Despite the simplified language and straightforward boiled down content of this book, by the end there was still a large amount I was struggling to grasp. It was somewhat like being tossed a hot potato – I kept on brushing the edges of understanding and for a moment thinking I almost might get a hold of it, until suddenly it would leap out of my hands (and mind). Of course, it’s hard to tell the difference between not understanding something, and (at least partially) understanding it and having genuine questions about it. Too often I’ve associated questions with a lack of understanding, but often the opposite is true. (Plus, of course, questions and inquiry can only lead to further understanding.)
As well as explaining the most current and (so far) plausible theories explaining the nature and structure of the universe, space and time, I took two core messages away from this book that I hadn’t expected to come across when I first started reading. The first is the emphasis of science as a practice/study being not about certainty but about questioning, and the second (very much related to the first) is about how science is not some sacred study superior to other subjects like, say, the humanities.
To me it showed shows the importance of art and philosophy and humanities in terms of development and discovery etc (if indeed that's what people think 'really' counts): Einstein's genius came not through his mathematical ability (which was lacking) but his imagination to picture the world differently, and his constant questioning (he was th greatest critic and sceptic of his own work). Dante's conception of the world and heavens in the Paradiso as a 3-sphere was not due to science but an expression of his artistic/spiritual genius. This isn’t to say that science itself is narrow-minded – it is to say that genuine science does not present things as unchallenged facts but hypotheses and theories to be tested. Good scientists are as creative and out-of-the-box-thinking as philosophers, and shouldn't be confined by scientific theories any more than philosophers are confined by philosophical theories. Having the freedom and ability to think outside the box, into the realm of the bonkers, is what results in massive progress, it seems. Cherishing and encouraging creativity and arts and imaginative thinking can only be a good thing. Rovelli expresses this nicely in his own way on p88: 'Our culture is foolish to keep science and poetry separated: they are two tools to open our eyes to the complexity and beauty of the world.'
Other lines worth mentioning:
'To a wise man, the whole earth is open, because the true country of a virtuous soul is the entire universe.' - p25, words of Democritus
Even the greatest make mistakes and are prey to preconceived ideas. - p176-7 (after Einstein stubbornly refused to accept the idea of the universe expanding)
The nature of a man is not his internal structure but the network of personal, familial and social interactions within which he exists. - p227
A scientist is someone who lives immersed in the awareness of our deep ignorance, in direct contact with our own innumerable limits, with the limits of our understanding. - p230