“The time it takes to test a new fundamental law of nature can be longer than a scientist’s career. This forces theorists to draw upon criteria other than empirical adequacy to decide which research avenues to pursue. Aesthetic appeal is one of them. In our search for new ideas, beauty plays many roles. It’s a guide, a reward, a motivation. It is also a systematic bias“

In “Lost in Math - How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” by Sabine Hossenfelder



One of the most obnoxious notions I’ve ever read in Physics is the one that purports that we’re a simulation. If it's all a simulation, why wouldn't the world that simulated us be a simulation too? This is the turtles all the way down idea. This doesn't mean it isn't true but it's also the same question as, if God created the universe and us, who created God? The answer I sometimes get when I say it’s all hogwash, is that the theory is aesthetically pleasing. Where is the evidence? And more importantly, is it “implausifiable” (I’m borrowing here Hossenfelder’s term)? The supposed evidence for our universe being a simulation seems to largely include the idea that if we extrapolate our technological progress further ahead in time, we will be able to build such a simulation ourselves *therefore* we are a simulation.

If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

“’So what is it Enoch Soule? Why are you here? What are you here to tell me?’
[…]
‘I know why you’re here,’ he [the chess player] said.”

In “The Somnambulist's Dreams” by Lars Jerlach



2018’s been my year of reading some fundamental books on Physics. At least they are what some of my friends call Fundamental Books on Physics. After having read a bunch of them, some are not so fundamental: “Reality Is Not What It Seems” by Carlo Rovelli, “The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III -Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family” by Peter Byrne, “What is Real - The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics” by Adam Becker, “The Emergent Universe" by Wallace, “Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality” by Max Tegmark. My tiny brain is a hive of activity…Most of them were on the so-called Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics.

If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

The Stages of Truth: "Our Mathematical Universe - My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" by Max Tegmark


Forget about Tegmark’s 4 levels. The stages of truth I can remember are:

• Old Greeks saying "We only see a faint reflection of reality", i.e. we have observation, and that's flawed.
• Old Chinese saying "All we have is observation. Reality is observation, and observation is a function of the human form" which is a most interesting thing. They state that sense is inherently limited by our being. Excellent.
• Descartes saying "to know stuff, you must have doubt. Knowledge is developed by doubt" which means testing: the scientific method. Which he didn't invent, but put on a logical footing. And also founding it all on "I think, therefore I exist".
• Karl Popper saying that the essential property of what's knowable is what can be tested, questioned. This continues from Descartes and quite a few more in between including Kant obviously who's really cool but illegible.

If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

"Readers familiar with typical discussions of the measurement problem may be surprised that I have mentioned neither the 'eigenstate-eigenvalue link' nor the 'collapse of the hidden variables' theories.”

In “The Emergent Universe: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation” by David Wallace



Surprising statement to say the least. If one accepts the truthiness of the eigenstate-eigenvalue link it follows that if states are relative, then so are the values of observables. Not accepting this. what have we got? If an observable has got a value at a certain moment, is that observable-relative or not? 

Uhm…

A long time ago I remember Fred Hoyle asking "Are there any constants for all the universes?” I thought the universe was a put up job. There always being "something" is what shivers my timbers. I know they say energy is eternal but what is energy?


If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

The title says it all really. I'm used to books going over my head and that doesn't usually detract from my enjoyment but I have to say that the final reveal in this one just did not make sense to me. Maybe I drifted off at a critical point but why did the aliens need actual hatches to communicate, it isn't like they used them themselves? And where did the power for the first hatch come from. I know the hatches were powered by the enegy released by the end of time but did this mean that they had to wait for the end of time to build the first hatch? Surely they would have been dead then? Also it seems like the author had too many characters and didn't know what to do with them once they had served their purpose

Not my favourite Baxter. Pity.