What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information
Examines the concepts of information, meaning, and purpose, describes the function of information at various levels of organization, and discusses the theories of Edward Fredkin, Edward O. Wilson, and Kenneth Blouding
324 pages, Paperback
First published June 12, 1988
16 people are currently reading
2347 people want to read
About the author
Robert Wright
169 books1,480 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
ROBERT WRIGHT is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and Three Scientists and Their Gods. The New York Times selected The Moral Animal as one of the ten best books of the year and the other two as notable books of the year.
Wright is a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism and has been a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. A contributing editor at The New Republic, he has also written for Time, Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Wright has taught in the philosophy department at Princeton and the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, and is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and editor in chief of Bloggingheads.tv.
ROBERT WRIGHT is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and Three Scientists and Their Gods. The New York Times selected The Moral Animal as one of the ten best books of the year and the other two as notable books of the year.
Wright is a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism and has been a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. A contributing editor at The New Republic, he has also written for Time, Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Wright has taught in the philosophy department at Princeton and the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, and is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and editor in chief of Bloggingheads.tv.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 25, 2013
I gave it 4 stars, not because I walked away with a vast amount of new knowledge, but because I believe I only grasped about 3/4's of what was said. It's not that writing was poor (it wasn't) it was just that I felt at times my brain was saying, "Whoa, pal, you're getting into some strange territory here that I'm just not comfortable with," causing me to have to re-read things several times and finally just read on under the belief that it's better to keep moving along in hope that you can grasp and retain the broader points. Maybe that's what a really good book is. Maybe that's why you need to go back and read the great one's over and over again to pick out stuff you didn't see, or grasp, previously.
What this book does do is make you think. Not only that, it makes you think about things that you thought you knew or had thought about before, only now you're thinking of them much more deeply and with much more awe. The universe is a computer simulation? Yes I've heard that. The universe is a computer simulation because "something" created it to try to figure out a problem? That "something" can't know for sure what the future holds without witnessing the future itself unfold? My mind went a hundred different directions at once trying to wrap itself around that one.
It's like that through many parts of the book, but the first section on the universe being run by a computer was definitely my favorite.
This is great writing, and great writing deserves to be read. Don't let the date of this book chase you away. It's worthy of a read...multiple readings, in fact.
What this book does do is make you think. Not only that, it makes you think about things that you thought you knew or had thought about before, only now you're thinking of them much more deeply and with much more awe. The universe is a computer simulation? Yes I've heard that. The universe is a computer simulation because "something" created it to try to figure out a problem? That "something" can't know for sure what the future holds without witnessing the future itself unfold? My mind went a hundred different directions at once trying to wrap itself around that one.
It's like that through many parts of the book, but the first section on the universe being run by a computer was definitely my favorite.
This is great writing, and great writing deserves to be read. Don't let the date of this book chase you away. It's worthy of a read...multiple readings, in fact.
June 7, 2024
A PORTRAIT AND DIALOGUE WITH THREE NOTED SCIENTISTS
Author and editor/journalist Robert Wright wrote in the ‘Note to Readers’ of this 1988 book, “I don’t want to alarm you, but this book is about---1. The concept of information; 2. The concepts of meaning and purpose, in both their mundane and cosmic senses; 3. The function of information at various levels of organic organization… with particular emphasis on its role in reconciling life with the second law of thermodynamics; 4. The meaning of the information age, viewed in light of the role information has played throughout evolution; 5. The meaning of life; and 6. A couple of other issues at the intersection of religion and science… this book is also about three living, breathing, and… unusually interesting human beings. In fact, they are what the book is MAINLY about. So… all you have to do is read about them… and let the subjects emerge in the process.”
The first section is about Edward Fredkin (born 1934), who was a professor at MIT (Electrical Engineering) and Boston University (Physics). Wright notes, “I begin to understand that this is a theory not just of physics but of metaphysics… Fredkin’s metaphysics leads to a kind of high-tech theology---to speculation about supreme beings and the purpose of life… For now we can only ponder the short answer to the question of what Fredkin’s universe is ultimately made of: ‘I’ve come to the conclusion,’ he says, ‘that the most concrete thing in the world is information.’” (Pg. 26-27)
Fredkin observes, “Everything in the universe is reversible. This doesn’t mean that you could take, say, a bunch of carbon dioxide molecules … and induce them to turn around and retrace their steps. It means only that you could retrace their steps for them… because information about their past is implicit in their present… If you could measure everything in the universe with absolute precision, and then do a series of ungodly calculations, you could reconstruct the past… such backward extrapolation is not practical, for a variety of reasons. But it is in principle doable. The information for reconstructing history of out there. The universe remembers.” (Pg. 48-49)
Wright points out, “Fredkin can show you how some differential equations can be translated into simple algorithms, and how a cellular automaton can create a pattern that looks something like microscopic particles bouncing around. But he hasn’t come up with algorithms that account precisely for basic physical phenomena, much less the single rule that he believes governs the universe---‘the cause and prime mover of everything.’” (Pg. 60)
Next, Wright turns to Edward Osborne Wilson [“E.O.”] (born 1929), an American biologist, naturalist, and writer who is known as “the father of sociobiology.” Wright states, “What convinced Wilson to subject humans to the explanatory power of sociobiology was the resolution, at last, of the tension between his religion and his science. ‘I had a lot of inner struggle… I don’t mean to say that I was tempted to return to a fundamentalist view or even an essentially Christian, religious view of the world.’ But neither could he accept the view, prevalent among intellectuals, that the religious experience is nothing more than ‘an excited mental state,’ and is thus not in need of special explanation. He had seen firsthand---and felt---the depth of its appeal; he was certain that religion had biological roots, that at some point it had been good for the genes. The question was how.” (Pg. 144-145)
Of Wilson’s book ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,’ Wright observes, “Wilson’s critics … focused on the last chapter: ‘Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology.’ … Wilson’s claims are not all that intemperate. He mainly suggested… that, since humans are products of natural selection, the perspective of the evolutionary biologist could shed light on the nature of things such as aggression, ethics, aesthetics, romance, and religion---that, in other words, the genes play a prominent role in these areas.” The book was strongly criticized by geneticist Richard Lewontin and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, who were members of Wilson’s own department at Harvard University. “Gould, Wilson says, had spoken to him days before the letter appeared without mentioning it. Wilson felt, says one friend, that he had been stabbed in the back.” (Pg. 152)
Finally, he turns to Kenneth Boulding (1910–1993), an English-born American economist, educator, peace activist, and interdisciplinary philosopher. Wright notes, “To the extent that Boulding’s talk has a unifying theme, it is the same theme that unifies … another of his books: ‘Ecodynamics.’ … Human society, according to Boulding, is held intact---and, sometimes, torn apart---by three great ‘systems’… the ‘threat system,’ which depends on coercion… the ‘exchange system,’ which depends on reciprocation… and the ‘integrative system,’ which depends on---well, that’s the problem…beneath this crazy quilt on insights and opaque quips is a reasonably coherent body of thought… To the uninitiated … there appears to be no real purpose in his ramblings.” (Pg. 220-221)
Wright notes, “In saying there are no good theories about the tendency of complexity to grow, Boulding is being a little hard on himself… [His theory] goes roughly as follows: evolution works by filling empty niches; since the first organisms were very simple, and their niches were, by definition, already occupied, most of the empty niches were at higher levels of complexity. And thus… the road to novelty necessarily leads upward.” (Pg. 258)
Wright concludes about “those who hold out faith for global harmony”: “these global threats preserve the equation that got us here in the first place: the invisible hand’s translation of individual interests into larger order… For if it is in our interest to sustain the direction of evolution, then we needn’t infer this purpose blindly from that direction; we can pursue it just because it makes sense. So the evolutionary ‘logic’ that has driven life to violate the spirit of the second law all along is now suddenly literal: not only is self-interest equated with a larger order; we are THINKING… about this equation and trying to realize it.” (Pg. 301-302)
This book will be of keen interest to those looking for “bigger picture” interpretations of life and science.
Author and editor/journalist Robert Wright wrote in the ‘Note to Readers’ of this 1988 book, “I don’t want to alarm you, but this book is about---1. The concept of information; 2. The concepts of meaning and purpose, in both their mundane and cosmic senses; 3. The function of information at various levels of organic organization… with particular emphasis on its role in reconciling life with the second law of thermodynamics; 4. The meaning of the information age, viewed in light of the role information has played throughout evolution; 5. The meaning of life; and 6. A couple of other issues at the intersection of religion and science… this book is also about three living, breathing, and… unusually interesting human beings. In fact, they are what the book is MAINLY about. So… all you have to do is read about them… and let the subjects emerge in the process.”
The first section is about Edward Fredkin (born 1934), who was a professor at MIT (Electrical Engineering) and Boston University (Physics). Wright notes, “I begin to understand that this is a theory not just of physics but of metaphysics… Fredkin’s metaphysics leads to a kind of high-tech theology---to speculation about supreme beings and the purpose of life… For now we can only ponder the short answer to the question of what Fredkin’s universe is ultimately made of: ‘I’ve come to the conclusion,’ he says, ‘that the most concrete thing in the world is information.’” (Pg. 26-27)
Fredkin observes, “Everything in the universe is reversible. This doesn’t mean that you could take, say, a bunch of carbon dioxide molecules … and induce them to turn around and retrace their steps. It means only that you could retrace their steps for them… because information about their past is implicit in their present… If you could measure everything in the universe with absolute precision, and then do a series of ungodly calculations, you could reconstruct the past… such backward extrapolation is not practical, for a variety of reasons. But it is in principle doable. The information for reconstructing history of out there. The universe remembers.” (Pg. 48-49)
Wright points out, “Fredkin can show you how some differential equations can be translated into simple algorithms, and how a cellular automaton can create a pattern that looks something like microscopic particles bouncing around. But he hasn’t come up with algorithms that account precisely for basic physical phenomena, much less the single rule that he believes governs the universe---‘the cause and prime mover of everything.’” (Pg. 60)
Next, Wright turns to Edward Osborne Wilson [“E.O.”] (born 1929), an American biologist, naturalist, and writer who is known as “the father of sociobiology.” Wright states, “What convinced Wilson to subject humans to the explanatory power of sociobiology was the resolution, at last, of the tension between his religion and his science. ‘I had a lot of inner struggle… I don’t mean to say that I was tempted to return to a fundamentalist view or even an essentially Christian, religious view of the world.’ But neither could he accept the view, prevalent among intellectuals, that the religious experience is nothing more than ‘an excited mental state,’ and is thus not in need of special explanation. He had seen firsthand---and felt---the depth of its appeal; he was certain that religion had biological roots, that at some point it had been good for the genes. The question was how.” (Pg. 144-145)
Of Wilson’s book ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,’ Wright observes, “Wilson’s critics … focused on the last chapter: ‘Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology.’ … Wilson’s claims are not all that intemperate. He mainly suggested… that, since humans are products of natural selection, the perspective of the evolutionary biologist could shed light on the nature of things such as aggression, ethics, aesthetics, romance, and religion---that, in other words, the genes play a prominent role in these areas.” The book was strongly criticized by geneticist Richard Lewontin and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, who were members of Wilson’s own department at Harvard University. “Gould, Wilson says, had spoken to him days before the letter appeared without mentioning it. Wilson felt, says one friend, that he had been stabbed in the back.” (Pg. 152)
Finally, he turns to Kenneth Boulding (1910–1993), an English-born American economist, educator, peace activist, and interdisciplinary philosopher. Wright notes, “To the extent that Boulding’s talk has a unifying theme, it is the same theme that unifies … another of his books: ‘Ecodynamics.’ … Human society, according to Boulding, is held intact---and, sometimes, torn apart---by three great ‘systems’… the ‘threat system,’ which depends on coercion… the ‘exchange system,’ which depends on reciprocation… and the ‘integrative system,’ which depends on---well, that’s the problem…beneath this crazy quilt on insights and opaque quips is a reasonably coherent body of thought… To the uninitiated … there appears to be no real purpose in his ramblings.” (Pg. 220-221)
Wright notes, “In saying there are no good theories about the tendency of complexity to grow, Boulding is being a little hard on himself… [His theory] goes roughly as follows: evolution works by filling empty niches; since the first organisms were very simple, and their niches were, by definition, already occupied, most of the empty niches were at higher levels of complexity. And thus… the road to novelty necessarily leads upward.” (Pg. 258)
Wright concludes about “those who hold out faith for global harmony”: “these global threats preserve the equation that got us here in the first place: the invisible hand’s translation of individual interests into larger order… For if it is in our interest to sustain the direction of evolution, then we needn’t infer this purpose blindly from that direction; we can pursue it just because it makes sense. So the evolutionary ‘logic’ that has driven life to violate the spirit of the second law all along is now suddenly literal: not only is self-interest equated with a larger order; we are THINKING… about this equation and trying to realize it.” (Pg. 301-302)
This book will be of keen interest to those looking for “bigger picture” interpretations of life and science.
December 7, 2009
A highly readable and fascinating account of the philosophies of three scientists. There are some pretty unorthodox ideas in this book about the nature of the universe, the formation of human culture and identity, and the ways in which we communicate. It had me thinking pretty hard all the way through, and will surely challenge your ideas as well. Wright is a fantastic writer, able to make complex ideas understandable without much jargon, but not to dumb things down.
In addition to extended interviews with the titular three scientists, there are also chapters with titles such as, "What is Information," "What is Meaning," "What is Communication," and "What is Complexity." As you can imagine, these questions prove exceeding difficult to answer. I completely enjoyed this book and look forward to reading Wright's other books, which also sound great.
In addition to extended interviews with the titular three scientists, there are also chapters with titles such as, "What is Information," "What is Meaning," "What is Communication," and "What is Complexity." As you can imagine, these questions prove exceeding difficult to answer. I completely enjoyed this book and look forward to reading Wright's other books, which also sound great.
June 10, 2017
This a fascinating and thought provoking profile of three scientists views about the meaning of life. My favourite of the three is Kenneth Boulding - who was an openly religious scientist with quite an uplifting view about the trajectory of humanity.
I'm not religious but many in modern society are adamant that religion and science are at odds. However what this book subtly suggests is that science is often explaining scientifically what some religious doctrines already uncovered long ago.
In an examination of genetic and cultural evolution the author points to how there has been a constant progression towards greater complexity and order - for example in more recent human history as communication technology has improved we've been able to form more closely knit organsiations - i.e. Corporations, nations, trading blocks etc. These are imperfect but the point is that evolution has been moving us towards "unity", or from a religious point of view "brotherly love".
I'm not religious but many in modern society are adamant that religion and science are at odds. However what this book subtly suggests is that science is often explaining scientifically what some religious doctrines already uncovered long ago.
In an examination of genetic and cultural evolution the author points to how there has been a constant progression towards greater complexity and order - for example in more recent human history as communication technology has improved we've been able to form more closely knit organsiations - i.e. Corporations, nations, trading blocks etc. These are imperfect but the point is that evolution has been moving us towards "unity", or from a religious point of view "brotherly love".
July 13, 2024
I am left with many questions but that might be the point of it. I really enjoyed the read and found it very easy to keep engaging with the content. This might be driven by my fascination with evolutionary science and its intersection with religion.
August 21, 2023
Having just finished this book, it's certainly well worth the read, and as evidence of the pleasurable experience, I can make the following comments:
First the conversation on the subject is tremendously rich and varied. It's a pleasant experience that Wright allowed the conversation to breathe with the skill of a writer and a well internalized understanding. He doesn't rush to points; they are there and he makes them. He makes them in many different ways, but does so with a delicate dexterity that avoids straining itself as one might when attempting to deliver a crescendo or a grand thesis. This does however mean that it's a long conversation and perhaps a bit too long. But for subjects as this, I think a bit of patience is worthwhile, because he does have a lot to say and it's worth practicing one's patience and willingness to just listen in effort to improve one's fertility for good, subtle ideas. In the end it's a very fine discussion that occurs at a very high level through the perspective of very interesting figures (his included).
Next, the best portion of the book is no doubt his description and delivery of the scientists which frame the conversation and exploration. One of the elements it highlights is that science isn't just a cold, exacting endeavor that is carefully procured by the monks practicing on their scientific sainthood. It is a lively passionate endeavor, and the three scientists exemplify the passionate, creative spirit required that actually pushes science forward through a "throw things at the wall and see what sticks" approach. We often forget that science is full of mavericks, and it's a very interesting thing that a consensus emerges that rarely carries the fingerprints or vestiges of the wild personalities that first hosted the remote bits that eventually become properly assembled through minute tweaks here and there. This is to say that the final headstone of immortalized theories have had many authors. Most of these authors labored hard to make it pristine and worthy, but only one name usually ends up being carved. Still, what is absolutely necessary is the willingness and vitality to make for the leap into the unknown. This happens repeatedly and most of the time without any frills and even with tragedy, but occasionally something sticks. Ideally, vitality and willingness is coupled with a professional aversion to bias, but few can excel at all ends simultaneously and more important is the former. In its own way at least it is honest, which is a moral imperative for science.
Finally, I will comment on his conclusions. Though only a fraction of the book is about meaning (and subject to my own limits), it details how a properly framed scientific discourse might unravel some of the pitfalls innate to the discussion of meaning. The central question is how we might obtain the fundamental unit of meaning that would give purpose to our existence. I am thankful that he chose to highlight the evolutionary impetus that might provide an answer. It actually makes sense to consider it because evolution exists as the organizing principle of living things. Therefore, it very well may be a good candidate for that most anthropologic of all questions. But, it's sort of a silly question to ask and to ask it outright is to in some sense show a lack of understanding.
We are born with an incredibly strong bias, which privileges our individual perspective (the I) so much so that it appears as a center of all things. The acquirement of understanding and perspective indirectly displaces us from this privileged position. However, broadening one's understanding in this way is not necessarily the natural or easiest path to take. The easiest path seems to be to make an appeal to a collective human fiction that enshrines our innate privilege. This solves a problem even more pressing than making factual statements regarding the reality of existence. It addresses the problem of other distinct, privileged positions posed by the other's I. Historically, the primary advantage of collective fictions is their ability to create social structures extending beyond the individual in both space and time. This would have been a governing force early on when no other forces formed social structures. Now, it's a vestige, and it ought to be understood that it produces a framing that is all wrong.
So, when we realize that such a question is a bug of our own incomplete perspective that formed from a time where our understanding was desperate to grasp at anything, then expecting a sensible answer to an insensible question must necessarily be insensible. There is no meaning beyond the meaning that we can create for ourselves. However, if natural selection with it's 2nd law violating bend, has placed us at the pinnacle of complex behavior, then surely one might argue that our aim ought to be to continue in this march towards complexity. Perhaps it is the hidden hand of evolution that guides and steers our path and our purpose exists within these constraints are dictated by the deeply routed and silent evolutionary chains. This type of explanation replaces the infinite of the divine with the infinity of a poorly constrained explanation. This places us in the same place as the religions did where we seek delivery through increasingly obscure chains that subjugate our prominence as the creators, and consequently, the weight that we carry in having to execute the tremendous responsibility of creating. Certainly, evolution allows us to weave an explanation that can generally account for our natural endowments and limitations, our origins. However, we have increasingly become to be characterized by the transcendence of these initial conditions. It is not a story of finally realizing our natural potential and evolution finally achieving its aim. Evolution birthed bacteria, dinosaur, and man with equal preference and indifference. We have now become our own creators because at least in the short term our hands are more potent than the indifferent hands of evolution, for we can choose whether we push complexity forward and in what way. If we expect evolution to imbue us with purpose then we have only replaced religious belief with evolutionary belief.
This is I think the point he was trying to make in the end. It was an exasperated but measured conclusion.
First the conversation on the subject is tremendously rich and varied. It's a pleasant experience that Wright allowed the conversation to breathe with the skill of a writer and a well internalized understanding. He doesn't rush to points; they are there and he makes them. He makes them in many different ways, but does so with a delicate dexterity that avoids straining itself as one might when attempting to deliver a crescendo or a grand thesis. This does however mean that it's a long conversation and perhaps a bit too long. But for subjects as this, I think a bit of patience is worthwhile, because he does have a lot to say and it's worth practicing one's patience and willingness to just listen in effort to improve one's fertility for good, subtle ideas. In the end it's a very fine discussion that occurs at a very high level through the perspective of very interesting figures (his included).
Next, the best portion of the book is no doubt his description and delivery of the scientists which frame the conversation and exploration. One of the elements it highlights is that science isn't just a cold, exacting endeavor that is carefully procured by the monks practicing on their scientific sainthood. It is a lively passionate endeavor, and the three scientists exemplify the passionate, creative spirit required that actually pushes science forward through a "throw things at the wall and see what sticks" approach. We often forget that science is full of mavericks, and it's a very interesting thing that a consensus emerges that rarely carries the fingerprints or vestiges of the wild personalities that first hosted the remote bits that eventually become properly assembled through minute tweaks here and there. This is to say that the final headstone of immortalized theories have had many authors. Most of these authors labored hard to make it pristine and worthy, but only one name usually ends up being carved. Still, what is absolutely necessary is the willingness and vitality to make for the leap into the unknown. This happens repeatedly and most of the time without any frills and even with tragedy, but occasionally something sticks. Ideally, vitality and willingness is coupled with a professional aversion to bias, but few can excel at all ends simultaneously and more important is the former. In its own way at least it is honest, which is a moral imperative for science.
Finally, I will comment on his conclusions. Though only a fraction of the book is about meaning (and subject to my own limits), it details how a properly framed scientific discourse might unravel some of the pitfalls innate to the discussion of meaning. The central question is how we might obtain the fundamental unit of meaning that would give purpose to our existence. I am thankful that he chose to highlight the evolutionary impetus that might provide an answer. It actually makes sense to consider it because evolution exists as the organizing principle of living things. Therefore, it very well may be a good candidate for that most anthropologic of all questions. But, it's sort of a silly question to ask and to ask it outright is to in some sense show a lack of understanding.
We are born with an incredibly strong bias, which privileges our individual perspective (the I) so much so that it appears as a center of all things. The acquirement of understanding and perspective indirectly displaces us from this privileged position. However, broadening one's understanding in this way is not necessarily the natural or easiest path to take. The easiest path seems to be to make an appeal to a collective human fiction that enshrines our innate privilege. This solves a problem even more pressing than making factual statements regarding the reality of existence. It addresses the problem of other distinct, privileged positions posed by the other's I. Historically, the primary advantage of collective fictions is their ability to create social structures extending beyond the individual in both space and time. This would have been a governing force early on when no other forces formed social structures. Now, it's a vestige, and it ought to be understood that it produces a framing that is all wrong.
So, when we realize that such a question is a bug of our own incomplete perspective that formed from a time where our understanding was desperate to grasp at anything, then expecting a sensible answer to an insensible question must necessarily be insensible. There is no meaning beyond the meaning that we can create for ourselves. However, if natural selection with it's 2nd law violating bend, has placed us at the pinnacle of complex behavior, then surely one might argue that our aim ought to be to continue in this march towards complexity. Perhaps it is the hidden hand of evolution that guides and steers our path and our purpose exists within these constraints are dictated by the deeply routed and silent evolutionary chains. This type of explanation replaces the infinite of the divine with the infinity of a poorly constrained explanation. This places us in the same place as the religions did where we seek delivery through increasingly obscure chains that subjugate our prominence as the creators, and consequently, the weight that we carry in having to execute the tremendous responsibility of creating. Certainly, evolution allows us to weave an explanation that can generally account for our natural endowments and limitations, our origins. However, we have increasingly become to be characterized by the transcendence of these initial conditions. It is not a story of finally realizing our natural potential and evolution finally achieving its aim. Evolution birthed bacteria, dinosaur, and man with equal preference and indifference. We have now become our own creators because at least in the short term our hands are more potent than the indifferent hands of evolution, for we can choose whether we push complexity forward and in what way. If we expect evolution to imbue us with purpose then we have only replaced religious belief with evolutionary belief.
This is I think the point he was trying to make in the end. It was an exasperated but measured conclusion.
February 22, 2022
I might not have been smart enough to read this book. lol I enjoyed the parts I got. The author presents three scientists who believe they have the answers to the "whys" of this life. The first proposed that we are in a computer simulation. The second believed in the intelligence of community, and the third was a Quaker economist. These three tell the author of their lives, their thoughts, and their religion. It was an interesting read. I possibly took too long to read it and therefore missed a lot of the continutity the author intended.
March 2, 2021
I've had this one on my "TBR" list for a while, and I think about reading it during those periodic attempts to find evidence that life is not devoid of meaning. Finished the book and still don't know what to think, but I think about it often and now have a few more theories thrown in which I will mull over.
August 8, 2022
A super interesting book for people with a taste for scientific things, and connecting them to the real world.
It's about a computer(information) scientist, socio-biologist, and economist thinking about their interpretations of the world, and the meaning of life.
It's a deeply thoughtful book, better to read in parts, with enjoying the journey.
It's about a computer(information) scientist, socio-biologist, and economist thinking about their interpretations of the world, and the meaning of life.
It's a deeply thoughtful book, better to read in parts, with enjoying the journey.
July 17, 2017
I read this back in early 90s and I still remember a lot of details. I used the arguments from this book to debate with people. If you're interested in computation and physics, I recommend it.
Read
September 7, 2020Really good. New information on computer theory, biology, etc.
March 23, 2021
Difficult read for me.
Lots of interesting takes on big topics.
Lots of interesting takes on big topics.
December 28, 2010
A profile of Edward Fredkin, inventor of the Fredkin gate, a jet fighter pilot and an early computer entrepreneur, Edward Wilson, entomologist and sociobiologist, and Kenneth Boulding, the only one of the three I haven't heard about before, who is some sort of New Age economist and political scientist. Fredkin is an enthusiast of the universe-as-a-cellular-automaton idea (later popularized by Stephen Wolfram), and he organized the translation of Konrad Zuse's Rechnender Raum (Calculating Space) into English. For me, Scott Aaronson's and Cosma Rohilla Shalizi's review of Wolfram's book have everything there is to know about the idea.
Currently reading
October 8, 2016the details of the history are lost in the way of energy transformation into heat. the mechanism is similar to the second thermodynamic law. very good observations! Entropy is so troubling to people, even the memory tends to lose so many important details.
Ockham Razor, or William of Ockham.
Newton's law of universal gravitation and 3 laws of motion, haven't been proved at all. or unable to be proved. what force is policing all these laws?
Ockham Razor, or William of Ockham.
Newton's law of universal gravitation and 3 laws of motion, haven't been proved at all. or unable to be proved. what force is policing all these laws?
April 25, 2009
This book provides a narrative description of individuals that I call "great white men of science". There is tendency within scientific historical content to glorify successful scientists or technically proficient individuals. The unrelenting praise in this book strikes me as likely to be less than full disclosure.
September 3, 2010
Good early work by Robert Wright. You can read his online column on nyt.com these days.
July 29, 2014
Definitely a book to make one think about thinking. Like to give this book to folks to who want to generalize about scientists and religion.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews