Books The Guardian

wordery Buy Books Online, Over 10 Millions Books

reader ò The Fabric of Reality The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications read

mobi The Fabric of Reality

reader ò The Fabric of Reality The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications read è [Reading] ➿ The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications ➶ David Deutsch – Feedmarkformulate.co.uk For David Deutsch a young physicist of unusuaKnowledge with uantum physics Considered jointly these four strands of explanation reveal a unified fabric of reality that is both objective and comprehensible the subject of this daring challenging book The Fabric of Reality explains and connects many topics at the leading edge of current research and thinking such as uantum computers which work by effectively collaborating with their counterparts in I've been blowing through books lately and it may be because I am at present too summer shallow and absorbed by theater books to give works like this the necessary patience So thank all the Neil Simon currently burning up space on my night table and take this review for what it's worthI went into this on the strength of recommendations that had me expecting something like Michio Kaku's Physics of the Impossible but found instead a ponderous mess that left me in full bore skim mode after only the second chapter Deutsch came across to me as patronizing and intolerant of those who do not share his views which he confesses are most scientists and writers He dismisses his colleagues as hopelessly reductionist wanting to reduce all observable phenomena to the behavior of elementary particles or positivist wanting to bother only with theories that can be used to predict observable phenomena complaining persuasively that such philosophies fail to explain our world in a way that can be rearticulated without access to a blackboardSo far so good Like any philosopher worth his publishing salt he Humpty Dumpties a lot of terminology to suit his own purpose and so Theory of Everything changes from meaning the grand unification of relativity and uantum theory allowing observable phenomena to be described by a single maths of electromagnetic gravity or some such to a one sentence explanation that ties together uantum theory parallel universes epistemology and evolutionDeutsch's explanation of interference patterns in light is done without recourse to wave theory the word does not appear in the index and probably does not exist in the book not even for purposes of theoretical rejection; his exegesis of uantum theory is all about individual light particles photons and their shadow counterparts The latter exist only to create interference and an infinitude of parallel universes identical in all respects to ours but for the photon that passes or fails to pass through a given experimental filter All this is well and good but Deutsch never bothers to explain why such a worldview which having earlier decried such definitions as pseudoscience unworthy of our consideration he allows to be unobservable and undocumentable is worth bothering withWorse having ridiculed as worthless the opinions of those who would describe planetary movement as resulting from angelic exertions how then to describe the angels' motivations? he goes on to glibly speculate that in other universes yet unseen other versions of him are writing the same words elegantly writing on another subject entirely or perhaps not writing at all but instead getting a cup of tea Never once does he explain how the horribly complicated chain of interfering photons and shadow photons across all of these imagined parallel universes might impact our observable world Or how we could observe it if they did Or why such a nonexplanation represents an improvement on the angel idea?The rest of the book is all of a piece with this I don't mind trying to believe 6 unbelievable things before breakfast but I do demand along the way that my mysterians demonstrate either internal consistency or a bit of humility Deutsch offers neither

reader ↠ The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications ´ David Deutsch

For David Deutsch a young physicist of unusual originality uantum theory contains our most fundamental knowledge of the physical world Taken literally it implies that there are many universes “parallel” to the one we see around us This multiplicity of universes according to Deutsch turns out to be the key to achieving a new worldview one which synthesizes the theories of evolution computation and Rating four exuberant excited stars out of fiveThis wonderful materialist rationalist counter opinion against theism and religiosity's book review was revised and can now be found at Expendable Mudge Muses AloudThere is than enough room in the Multiverse for reality based understandings of the spiritual world to render gawd obsolete

David Deutsch ´ The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications mobi

The Fabric of Reality The Science of Parallel Universes and Its ImplicationsOther universes the physics of time travel the comprehensibility of nature and the physical limits of virtual reality the significance of human life and the ultimate fate of the universe Here for scientist and layperson alike for philosopher science fiction reader biologist and computer expert is a startlingly complete and rational synthesis of disciplines and a new optimistic message about existence I would suggest that my other self Gary Beauregard Bottomley in a parallel universe should not waste his time reading this book It is deceptively misleading Explanation is not the foundation for reality as the author tries to show Explanation does not make the transcendental deduction real Samuel Johnson does not refute the Reverend Berkeley by kicking a rock even if the rock kicks back Hume’s experiences are not a sufficient foundation in themselves Kant wisely realizes that both Berkeley and Hume are wrong since they make truth dependent on an exclusive foundation of either the mind scientific anti realist or experience empirical thus Kant merges the two and creates a transcendental deduction but the explanation for reality is not the reality itself as the author will say; it is only made whole through the transcendental deduction that is within the faculty of understanding The measurement problem in physics is real Feynman said in one of the seven lectures of ‘The Characteristics of Physical Law’ that all the mysteries of physics are contained in the double slit experiment There is a paradox at the heart of being human The ‘Laws of Thought’ see Schopenhauer or Bertrand Russell for further elaboration break down The mutually exclusive law doesn’t always work for our best explanation of the world The author gives a fix to this vexing paradox The author makes the ontological foundation for reality derived from these four pillars uantum physics epistemology DawkinsDarwin Evolution and Turing universal machines His fix reuires a infinity of other universes that are process driven as opposed to event oriented Conversely Bertrand Russell who is often uoted in this book believed that all understanding came from experiences of events and when asked about the White Cliffs of Dover replied they were just a slow acting event The author appeals to Descartes’ cogito When one does that one should remember that Descartes first assumes away an objective world and gets subjective certainty only after having done that so of course if you assume the world outside of yourself away all that remains is what is within you Further see Avicenna’s Floating Man for why that might be a foolish starting point The author needs subjectiveobjective in formulating his arguments because he says in multiple ways that ‘there is an objective truth out there’ and he seems to think that explaining a phenomena makes it objectively real as he’ll say is true for mathematics Einstein needed ‘hidden variables’ in order to explain uantum physics and assumed away ‘spooky action at a distance’ in order to explain and keep his scientific realism but today we all know there are no hidden variables and entanglement is real Hypothesizing infinite universes with processes instead of events will be able to explain entanglement but perhaps there are other unknown possible explanations waiting to be found or maybe we just live in simulation and can’t break out By no means do I reject the MWI I just think this author’s justification is flawed overall Hegel said certainty is within us and truth is outside of us and he will dialectically resolve the paradox allowing for Heidegger to take that by inverting Husserl’s ‘bracketing’ of the world to get his being in the world through present at hand ready at hand and being human Dasein I mention this because this author doesn’t follow in the method of Hegel or Heidegger; rather he often brackets the world extracting an objective reality within a subjective frame of reference for his conclusions He’ll also often give false dichotomies such that it’s either the Copenhagen Interpretation or his Hugh Everett III MWI or it’s either Popper or Kuhn that are our choices Sometimes the world doesn’t need to be binary for our potential reasonable options hence my Kant reference in the first paragraph The author has a scientific realism with progress underlying his world view I think it’s possible to say that science sometimes replaces what came before it in such a way that we can justifiably say that we were wrong previously phlogiston is Kuhn’s example For example at one time Fma was considered tautologically true by Mach and most others but Einstein changes that completely acceleration needs a relativistic correction and the very concept of Force or mass or acceleration is different after Einstein then it was before thus changing almost everything in our understanding of the physical world Our concept of the Sun changed because we finally had a better new way not a best way but definitely a different way to explain how the Sun could be older than the earth because we could say fusion kept it hot and gravitationally balanced How we understand the Sun changed with Einstein from how we understood the Sun with Newton We use the same word ‘Sun’ but everything we understood about it was redefined with different implications and understanding It was no longer a fiery ball of hot gas but it was a controlled nuclear fusion helium producing entity with a whole lot of uantum tunneling transpiring The author will show that his explanation for the double slit experiment by invoking parallel universes explains free will within humans That’s actually a non insignificant part of the book and it is a big part of his argument Augustine gives the Christian West its concept of free will and he said that it is the power within humans that was analogous to the power that God Himself had which allowed him to freely but not necessarily since for Augustine God is all powerful and nothing can make an all powerful being do something necessarily create the universe My only real way I understand ‘free will’ is by hypothesizing a God who judges by sending some to hell and others to heaven and wonder how that God would make His decision My gut tells me an all knowing all good all wise God would never send someone to hell because He She or It would always know that but for the Grace of God there would go each individual and the free will that we possessed was just an illusion because time chance and circumstances created the person and his actions through a long series of cause and effect steps BTW Schopenhauer in Volume I and Volume II of his ‘Will and Representation’ ends each volume with saying it is through God’s Grace alone that we thrive because Schopenhauer’s deterministic philosophy doesn’t allow for people to control their own destiny and I actually tend to agree with that with or without a multi verse to ‘explain’ free will and reality as a whole Free will in a human relates to whether a machine can think The author will say that in order for us to know if a machine is thinking we will have to understand explain how it is thinking and we will know that through using his multi verse paradigm I would say that even within myself let alone others who may or may not be a machine the closest I can get at is ‘I want what I desire but I don’t desire what I desire’ and I’m never able to see into the heart or head of anyone even myself and the most I ever get to see is their actions or hear their words and interpolate through a kind of transcendental deductivism This author’s speculation on uantum computers from the 1998 perspective is fascinating uantum computers are real today but they were speculative at the time of this book When the author talked about uantum computers or Turing is when he was at his best Otherwise I think most of this book was not worth while today and was heavy handed in its presentation and lacked philosophical rigor Though I did not know anything about Frank Tipler and his Omega Point philosophy and I want to learn Contrary to this book I think Reason with a capital ‘R’ is a fictional label we use to fabricate explanations for our understanding of reality The author makes Reason through our explaining reality integral for his ontological system I know a lot of what I wrote above won’t be understood and I wrote things in short hand such that I’m fairly certain if Gary Beauregard Bottomley GBB gets to read this review in a parallel universe he’ll understand fully what the real GBB meant and probably would just skip this book and read Tipler’s book instead