Notes on the island of knowledge
asks the question is nature ultimately comprehensible. I'm not particularly interested in that question and the book didn't make me think I should be. But what I was interested in was how do we go about thinking about that question. Gleiser takes a survey approach looking at the historic background of science going back to the Greeks and then up through multiverse theories today to argue that nature is not comprehensible at least somewhat because of quantum nonlocality (things are affecting other things that are not exchanging information). It didn't feel to me that he proved that nature is not comprehensible only that we cant explain it. But again I'm not really interested in whether he did or not and nor am I in a position to evaluate it.
What I found interesting wer
e his discussions of contemporary theories like the multiverse which he argues cannot be proved. Of course, for a scientific perspective that's a death sentence. I wondered if David deutsch would agree. . . Reading further I see that he does not. Instead deutsch embraces the many world interpretation.
Gleiser argues that nature is inherently random, which he uses as further evidence for his view. No idea if he is right or if he is whether it supports his view but I love the idea of it. Nature has no destination. . . But it also seems possible that nature does have a destination, one just beyond our instruments. I don't see why that is problematic. Why would nature try to make herself understandable. She is oblivious to the understanders.
The entire time I was reading this it felt like gleiser has a theory he is working towards and he's marshalling the evidence and arguments that will take him there. Feels very forced.
He states without an interpreter with consciousness of a certain complexity reality is not even a question, p. 236. That just seems bogus. Why not? Reality, whatever that means, does not depend on humans. His claim doesn't even make sense to me.
Ironically, he starts chapter 29 stating that humans are compelled to make sense of the world and figure out how we fit in. Just because we have a compulsion, does not mean that the universe must fit our compulsion or even give one hoot about it. Getting over that compulsion would go a long way to abandoning the goal of this book which seems to be to somehow create a meaningful universe in the
author's mind.
Last chapter on consciousness is the least scientific but the most thought provoking, kind of a survey of where science is in understanding mind, which is generally, not very advanced.
- Central question of the book, is it God or laws or both or neither that bring order to the world, p. 241. My response, there is no order. His response, the order comes from our mind.
What I found interesting wer
e his discussions of contemporary theories like the multiverse which he argues cannot be proved. Of course, for a scientific perspective that's a death sentence. I wondered if David deutsch would agree. . . Reading further I see that he does not. Instead deutsch embraces the many world interpretation.
Gleiser argues that nature is inherently random, which he uses as further evidence for his view. No idea if he is right or if he is whether it supports his view but I love the idea of it. Nature has no destination. . . But it also seems possible that nature does have a destination, one just beyond our instruments. I don't see why that is problematic. Why would nature try to make herself understandable. She is oblivious to the understanders.
The entire time I was reading this it felt like gleiser has a theory he is working towards and he's marshalling the evidence and arguments that will take him there. Feels very forced.
He states without an interpreter with consciousness of a certain complexity reality is not even a question, p. 236. That just seems bogus. Why not? Reality, whatever that means, does not depend on humans. His claim doesn't even make sense to me.
Ironically, he starts chapter 29 stating that humans are compelled to make sense of the world and figure out how we fit in. Just because we have a compulsion, does not mean that the universe must fit our compulsion or even give one hoot about it. Getting over that compulsion would go a long way to abandoning the goal of this book which seems to be to somehow create a meaningful universe in the
author's mind.
Last chapter on consciousness is the least scientific but the most thought provoking, kind of a survey of where science is in understanding mind, which is generally, not very advanced.
Comments
Post a Comment