An interesting overview of the practical and theoretical limits of logic, mathematics and science. Deals with the limits of knowability, determinism, An interesting overview of the practical and theoretical limits of logic, mathematics and science. Deals with the limits of knowability, determinism, computation and predictability in science and mathematics. This is a clear and concise study of various topics from classical logic to modern physics, but lacks a quest for deeper understanding. ...more
Philip ball provides a comprehensive overview of the Emergent phenomenon of pattern formation in nature.
His discussions range from the physical procesPhilip ball provides a comprehensive overview of the Emergent phenomenon of pattern formation in nature.
His discussions range from the physical processes like the minimal surfaces in bubbles and foams, BZ reactions, convection cells, mineral dendrite formations, branching of rivers to the very similar patterns formed in the biological systems like the pattern formation on the hides of zebras and giraffes, branching patterns in trees, retinal nerves etc., and the patterns in communities of animals and humans He finally concludes with a chapter on the general principles governing pattern formation. Why do so many different physical phenomenon produce very similar patterns?
One theme we can see throughout this book is an argument against the gene-centric reductionism in modern biology. That the presence of some frequently repeating mathematical patterns in the nature like reaction-diffusion systems, fractals, spirals that can be generated by Fibonacci ratios, suggests some physical determinism in morphogenesis.
Highly recommended. some beautiful illustrations are provided and the author assumes no previous knowledge on the part of the reader....more
The first half of the book is a basic overview of modern physics and i moved through it quickly. He explores the current multiverse scenario in here. The first half of the book is a basic overview of modern physics and i moved through it quickly. He explores the current multiverse scenario in here. He classifies the multiverse into four categories. Level I multiverse consists of all the objects that lie beyond our cosmological horizon. Level II multiverse apparently consists of infinite number of Level I multiverses produced by inflation with different physical constants. Level III multiverse comes from the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. Everett interpretation actually makes some intuitive sense to me.
The second metaphysical part of the book where he presents his thesis is what i was looking forward to. His thesis seems to be that "our universe is a mathematical structure". He isn't just suggesting that our universe is described by mathematics but that it is mathematics, including us. There is nothing out there but mathematical relations, time is an illusion and nothing in the universe actually changes. This is where Level IV multiverse comes. All the structures that exist mathematically exist in the fourth level multiverse. All the structures that exist mathematically have the same ontological status.I found Tegmark's monism, an all-encompassing mathematical multiverse to be very appealing.
He comes to his idea of mathematical universe by reducing an empirical physical model of universe to mathematics. So for example, from what i understand, there are no objects such as quarks and leptons, but there are groups and the properties of quarks are described by the group. From this and considering the explanatory power of mathematics, a mathematical universe does make some intuitive sense. Perhaps the reason why mathematics is so successful in explaining our universe is because they are one and the same. I’m not sure that he made a convincing argument if everything can be reduced to mathematics ontologically. What about an emergent property like consciousness? His suggestion of mathematical self-aware structures didn't tell me much and his conjecture that Consciousness is a state of matter didn't make much sense to me. I never really understood what he means when he talks about subjective randomness and subjective immortality either. To whom is it subjective?
A lot of criticism for this book, as it seems to me, is that his theory is not "scientific". While i agree with this, it doesn't bother me. While there is nothing new or radical about Tegmark's mathematical monism, I was actually hoping that this book would be more mathematically and philosophically enlightening. But unfortunately there isn't much discussion about mathematical structures in here and this isn't a very good metaphysical treatise either. But if you are interested in an overview of modern physics, this is a very lucid and clear account. ...more
Loading...
