Vaguely Antitheist

I felt annoyed more than anything that he repeatedly says (with certainly), there is nothing mystical in the universe, there is no spirit, and no soul. Everything we have measured but haven't explained yet is mystical, you can't prove a negative, and I don't see how the rest of the story is in conflict with there being a soul. It feels almost like being an atheist is a prerequisite to enjoying the rest of the book. Why was it included at all? You can believe what you want, but I have little patience for people injecting their (however logical) *beliefs* into a book on *science* while giving no time to differing opinions.

45 people found this helpful

Boringly Anthropocentric

Ultimately, despite what appear to be his best efforts to deny it, the author's really "big idea" is to place one species, Homo sapiens, at the center of the known universe--both from a scientific and "spiritual" perspective. With the expressed view that "The Universe Is in Our Hands", the author aggrandizes Homo sapiens well beyond reason (or good science), seemingly unaware of (or uninformed about) the vast realms of intelligent, aware, conscious life forms that his precious humans continue to deliberately and unnecessarily obliterate from the face of this planet to serve the wants of the "immensely precious" humans. The author presents himself as a staunch guardian of The Human Empire, apparently conditioned to ignore the fact that the millions of other species, for millennia at the ruthless mercy of his favored species, also evolved naturally over billions of years in the same universe that is evolving from a state of low to high entropy. Yet, he chooses just one species from the millions to be his chosen miracle.

28 people found this helpful

Keeping this on REPEAT for months to come

Any additional comments?

I'm just going to cut to the chase and say that this is my favorite audiobook purchase so far out of the 98 I still have in my library. I phrase it that way as I am very prone to returning audiobooks after their first chapter (thanks, Audible!) if I find the narration unconvincing, too rigid, or just unpleasant in any way. I would rather wait and read it myself than suffer through anything less than a great performance in the narration department.Due to that reason, I gravitate to spending my credits on Great Courses as the lecture style of delivery is more engaging for me. My next favorite would be non-fiction read by the author, from an author that can read well. After that comes everything else. I would put this audiobook in a class by itself. Non-fiction read by the author in a manner every bit as engaging as the best lecturer, but without any asides or distractions and with the luxury of syncing with the written text for reference and reading later.Now that said, the book itself is probably the best attempt to date at making accessible to its audience an understanding of current Cosmology and Theoretical Physics and how they sync with Life Sciences to form a framework for seeing "The Big Picture." No small undertaking, but not since Carl Sagan's original Cosmos series and book has somebody created such a satisfying fusion. It should be noted, however, that this book wades in a bit further to the scientific details than Sagan's popularization did, but Carroll is such a generous guide that unless you aren't interested in learning some new terminology and concepts, it will be an enjoyable swim in deeper waters.

106 people found this helpful

ABSOLUTE MUST READ!

After having a countdown for this book, which spanned months, I woke up at 5 am on May 10th and thought, "It's finally here!" I opened my Audible library and it was better than Christmas. In the quiet of the morning, I began to listen to this deeply philosophical book and immediately fell in love with it. It felt like a Poetic Naturalist's version of Christmas- material gifts replaced by the gift of trying to understand the nature of our vast universe and the world in which we live.

Those who have wanted to read Sean Carroll but didn't want to wade through the science will be happy with this book. In the spirit of Alexander von Humboldt, Carroll tucks much of the complex science away in an appendix for those who would like more detail. But, that doesn't mean this book is light on the science. To the contrary, Carroll, as usual, takes some of the most complex issues science has to offer, and packages them in a form that even people with little or no scientific background can understand. In fact, this book in particular is aimed at those who might have little education in the sciences and and even less education about heuristics. It welcomes everyone to join in a thoughtful conversation about understanding what we know about our world and the wider universe. Does it have a purpose? Does its design imply any type of creator? Instead of insulting those who say that it does (I am guilty of this myself), Carroll provided a real way to put our beliefs to the test. He was very willing to consider the views of those who believe in God and provide a detailed method, which is both kind and built on logic, that can help us figure out whether a belief is true.

If the preceding paragraph suggests to you that those with extensive education in the sciences (including cognitive science) will be bored or find nothing new, then I have represented the book poorly. Even people whose undergrad and grad career consisted of many of the following courses will find new ways of thinking about that information and connecting it to the Big Picture.

Samples of related course material:

Intro to Cognitive Science (including Kahneman's heuristics)
Cognitive Neuroscience
Biochem (including chemiosmosis)
Evolution (including environmental modification of genes)
Origin of life research (including Martin, Russell, and Lane's work on bioenergetics and others working on RNA world)
Philosophy of Mind

Carroll opened the door for *everyone* to think about and discuss what evidence we would need for any belief to be validated. Instead of dismissing ideas of belief outright, Carroll employs a very gentle, yet fiercely logical style of problem solving. The result was powerful and reminded me of the deep humility and unfailing logic with which Darwin wrote his many books, including his autobiography.

Prior to this book, if anyone had asked me if I wanted to read yet another book on creationism vs. science or the hard problem of consciousness (involving Chalmers unrealistic and pseudoscientific zombies), the answer would have been a resounding, "NO!" I feel as if too much of my thinking time has been wasted by these concepts that serve only to anchor our progress. I want to push past all of that. I want to never again allow that type of scientific sabotage to ruin the progress I might make in understanding the universe in a real and more complete way than my current view allows. Often reading about the efforts of those who wage war on evidence based knowledge leaves me frustrated, often wishing I could get that time back. That was not the case with this book. The whole time, even though I was reading things I thought I was tired of reading, my neurons were flooding my brain with wonderful dopamine bursts. Reflexive "Wows" kept reverberating from my brain. The book fits into the category "MINDGASM!"

In a book, which includes such topics as:

how we know what we know
the forces that govern the universe
properties of elements in relation to other elements
quantum mechanics
emergence and complexity
how we gather and evaluate scientific evidence

Carroll, in his usual relatable fashion, seamlessly included discussions about today's relevant issues in society such as transgender rights, marriage equality. I recall reading E.O. Wilson's book Social Conquest Of Earth and feeling somewhat confused about the organization of the book. He kept social issues separate throughout the book and then bombarded the reader with a litany of important social issues. I love both Wilson and his book, but the social issues didn't fit and felt as if they should be in another book. Carroll's humorous (yet serious) approach when discussing such issues makes me feel as if I am reading a 20 something university student with his finger on the pulse of the upcoming generations, while at other times, when he is discussing concepts that take a long time to learn, I feel as if I am reading a book written by a scientifically minded Zarathustra. In a crazy way, this writing style really works.

Parts One, Two, and Three (the first half of the book) were basically an excellent summary of and entire 4 year experience as a major in Cognitive Science. After introducing such concepts as understanding cause and effect, understanding how things move and how momentum is conserved, and understanding how we come to adopt our belief systems, Carroll examined the many heuristics we employ when trying to understand how we know what we know. To figure this out, he introduced a sort of "best of" collection of thinkers. Marrying Cog Sci 101 (with a strong emphasis on Baysian reasoning) with Epistemology and Philosophy 101, he tried to understand what thinkers such as Descartes and Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia, and Kahneman thought about the nature of reality. The main questions scholars have been asking are, "How can I know what I know? How can I know what exists? How can I know if my beliefs reflect reality?" A take home point from Section Two is that people are all entitled to have their own prior beliefs. However, they are not entitled to have their own likelihood. There is an objective likelihood to be discovered, and it takes solid reasoning, and not tightly held belief, to make that discovery. **** see note at end.

While discussing heuristics, Carroll gave a shout out to one of my favorite books -- Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me. I love that book and am often disappointed that not too many people I have talked to seem to appreciate it in the way I do. I love that it got the recognition it deserved. Many books like it are sort of self-help oriented and veer too far from the science. Many authors fail to question if they are using the very heuristics they are writing about. Still others fail to question the methods to the studies they choose to include, brining down the overall quality of the book. But, Tavris and Aronson did much better than most avoiding these pitfalls. They deserved some recognition, not from the self-help crowd, but rather from a scientists who is celebrated for his keen logic.

In Part 4, Carroll related a humorous story about ending up on a plane, seated next to origin of life researcher Mike Russel. That was a great lead in to explaining Darwinian evolution, cellular formation, emergence, complexity (his complexity research sounds great! I am definitely going to read everything I can get my hand on concerning that), and ATP synthase (my very favorite protein channel!). If you are a bit fuzzy about what Free Energy is, this section will clear that up and relate it to exactly how your very own body works. (What a delicious section. I was too excited to see what came next. So I did not stop to listen again or take notes on this section. As soon as I am done writing this review, I am going to listen to this entire section again.)

Theodosius Dobzhansky said, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”. Thanks to scientists such as Sean Carroll, Mike Russell, Jeremy England, and others bridging the gap between living and non living systems, it will soon be said that Nothing in Biology or the larger universe Makes Sense Except in the Light of Thermodynamics. If you want the best possible summary of how thermodynamics fits into the story of living systems (including how those systems likely came into being and how they evolved), then you will love this section.

In Part Five, Carroll took on the philosophy of mind debate. You may have taken courses or read extensively about The Chinese Room, Mary, What it's Like to Be a Bat, Eliminative Materialism, and The Hard Problem. Even if you are extremely familiar with all of this, I would recommend reading Carroll's summary. Wow! I was engaged in a way that surprised me. He breathed new life into these debates. I was a tiny bit sad that he left out Andy Clark's work (especially in relation to Chalmers), but considering this book was more than 17 hours long (Audible), I understand that he didn't have time for everything. It's just that Clark's work (along with the Churchland's work) is what made Philosophy of Mind so great for me.

Carroll ended the book with what I can only say was a beautiful essay I didn't know I needed to read. If you are unfamiliar with the Is vs Ought problem, you can find out in this section what it is and why should you care. If you are well familiar with this question, you will enjoy the discussion provided on Carroll about morality. Deeply satisfying! A+! He ended on a more personal note than any thing I have read by him to date. It was truly a lovely book, from start to finish.

I think Carroll will be remembered along side of Copernicus and Darwin for providing us with gentle but clear evidence that we are not special. Far from being a depressing nihilistic view of the world and universe, Carroll showed his reader (even if you read with your ears) how reality is actually more special than any false belief about being special. Understanding can be the deepest religion of all (idk if Carroll would put it quite like that, but it's my takeaway message).



****I was going to include in this review a bit about Sean Carroll's "planet v black hole belief system," but I posted about it on Facebook and butchered what was an excellent analogy. I can only say that you need to read it for yourself. If you get the analogy, you will forever ask yourself, "Am I being a black hole right now? "Am I following the evidence or am I fooling myself and holding tight to heuristically driven fallacies?" I can see a new viral way of thinking springing from this analogy -- e.g. insults or memes that include the statement, "Stop being such a black hole!"

161 people found this helpful

No philosophical understanding

Within 10 minutes the author claimed that an understanding of the physical world will actively disprove the existence of a metaphysical soul. The claim shows that the author has zero understanding of the philosophy of religion or really critical thinking. Sad. No one can disprove the existence of non detectable non physical things through physical means. Zero credibility

24 people found this helpful

Preaching to the choir, but great preaching

I love Sean Carroll and will continue seeking out his stuff.

While it's a really well constructed book, as a 40 year old science geek a lot of it was quite boring (but necessary) contextualising. I'd rate the quality of the content 5/5 and the enjoyment I got 2/5.

However my 20 year old self would have found it much more interesting. In some ways the book helps one to think critically, not just about science but about anything. In my younger shoes I'd have given it 4/5 for enjoyment.

So I suspect the more you already know about science and critical thinking, the less new and interesting concepts you'll glean from the book. I know that sounds obvious but it feels more pronounced than usual here.

7 people found this helpful

Not very captivating

The content is good, but it is not an easy or very captivating reading. I had to struggle to finish it.

4 people found this helpful

Pragmatic - not poetic - Naturalism

Amazing book by one of our generation's most thoughtful scientists. Sean's description of Feynman's path integral formulation of the Core Theory of physics (the appendix) is worth buying the whole book for.

In a nutshell, this whole book is Sean's opus to "poetic naturalism", where "naturalism" is the philosophical belief that all of reality can be explained via the scientific method elucidating the natural laws of the materialistic universe, and "poetic" allows for ontologically diverse descriptions of said natural laws, depending on the regime being described - (and this is crucial) as long as these diverse ontologies are ultimately consistent AND each are "useful" in their own respect. For example, although aerodynamics is fundamentally an electrostatic phenomenon at the level of particle physics, poetic naturalism allows that Bernoulli's Law is a perfectly valid description of reality for low-speed, fixed-wing aircraft. Thus, we can talk about a "fluid" being an actual thing, even though there is no such thing as a continuous fluid, only particles, or rather, interacting fields.

I will now nitpick this awesome philosophical framework on two grounds. First, this should really be called Pragmatic Naturalism. As Sean says over and over again in the book, the main criteria for allowing differing ontologies is their "usefulness" in their respective regimes. Rocket scientists can not calculate the earthly trajectory of rockets by considering the interactions of every particle of air, even though that would be the most accurate (most closely matching veridical truth) method. So we define air as a fluid of certain density and go from there. This is a practical consideration - an engineering consideration... a pragmatic consideration. In my opinion, it is not only more poetic to dispense with the approximations to reality given by fluid dynamics and speak only of the field interactions (what Sean calls "Austere" naturalism), it is also the mode of thinking which will (and has) lead to next-generation science, technology, and understanding of the universe at large, including ourselves.

My second and last pinprick of criticism is that a description of reality should never ever be based on a "useful way of talking". This is where Sean's naturalism is ironically closest to the "anti-Copernican" descriptions of reality he rightfully decries, particularly when Sean begins to consider what consciousness is. Our inner experiences - our qualia - the "redness" of red, is ultimately (Sean knows) encoded in the firings of our neurons, and Sean says furthermore that this is what we mean when we say that red has "redness" - redness is simply our useful way of talking to each other about the firings of our neurons. This is much too anthrocentric, and not only that, it is incorrect. Qualia are not merely a cipher for neural firings (as air is a cipher for a particular collection of particles), as poetic naturalism leads one to believe. If redness were merely our way of talking - are butterflies then precluded from the experience of the colors of flowers, since they are incapable of talking? If a bat knows "what it is like to be a bat" without being able to talk about it - then this "batness" literally could never be a way of talking. The better way to understand qualia is for what it is - as the very personal facts of each entity's processing of neural information. That processing is itself a thing - it is what consciousness is. This is why we must be exacting in our understanding at all times, and not become complacent in different ways of talking in different regimes. This is the poetry - the Zen - of what Sean calls Austere Naturalism.

These are highly nuanced criticisms of "poetic" naturalism, but anyone loving Sean's book as I have can surely appreciate these distinctions.

4 people found this helpful

Scientific discussion of theism

Not what I was after in a physics book. I think I should have paid more careful attention to the publisher’s description; namely the portion that mentions “deepest personal questions” and “give [our lives] meaning.”
So, for the benefit of anyone else who might breeze over the publisher’s description, let me be explicit in my statement here: THIS BOOK PRIMARILY DISCUSSES SCIENCE, RELIGION/SPIRITUALITY, & ATHEISM VS THEISM (and the scientific thought process applied to analysis of the subject).
--
This IS the book for you, if you are interested in listening to a very detailed and extensive discussion of the application of the scientific method/analysis (e.g. objective evidence-based discussion centered on the predictive power of various religious/metaphysical beliefs). This is also the book for you if you are interested in a rather enlightening look into how we can find meaning for our lives in a universe of physical laws and chance. While a somewhat dry piece of literature, Carroll does an excellent job with a logical progression of evidence and thought exercises to bring to light both of the fairly vast and complex subjects.
Frankly, when I pick up a layman’s physics book, I’m not looking for a discussion of philosophy. I’m interested in the scientific aspect of a scientific subject. I’ll keep the theology shelved separately, thank you very much.
The production quality was excellent, and the narration by the author was surprisingly good (though occasionally a bit overly-enunciated or slower than I like).
--
That being said, my relatively low rating for this book is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE and based largely on my disappointment in the subject matter covered. I would give it 1-2 stars simply because it's not what I want from a physics book. I gave it 3, because I have to admit that it does a good job of what it aims to do (not great, but good). What I see as a negative may be a great positive for someone else in this case. So, I’d say, as long as you’re aware of what you’re getting into, this may be the perfect book for you.
P.S. The PDF IS AVAILABLE to download, so you can see the figures referenced.

66 people found this helpful

Excellent

We don't have to know everything to know enough to rule out a few things! And Thou shall not extrapolate beyond the domain of applicability! I'm a big fan and this did not disappoint.

19 people found this helpful