thomcat's review against another edition
4.0
This book comes at the idea of multiple parallel universes from two angles - physics and math - without requiring a degree in either. Well written with humor, the content is easily read, but the arguments are not always so clear cut. An interesting perspective that I'm not sure I agree with.
In the first portion of the book, "Mad" Max (as he is known among physicists) lays out much of what we know about the universe, making the case actual parallel universes (as opposed to theoretical). The first chapter even contains a quick chart showing which chapters should be read by the science curious, the hard-core reader of popular science, and physicists.
In parts 2 & 3, he dives into the math, coming around to idea that math doesn't just represent the universe, but that it *is* the universe (a 1:1 mapping, if you will). I don't think all physical processes can be represented by math at present, but it is an interesting thought. The math that doesn't seem to fit our universe? That's for parallel universes. How many of them have life like us? Probably a very small quantity, because the physics of our universe is especially suited to our life (aka anthropomorphic). Unfortunately, the argument for this particular thought stops at this point - perhaps it was too much math for a popular book? - and this point is short of proving the assumption.
As would be appropriate in a book about life, the universe, and everything, Douglas Adams is quoted on nine different occasions. This fact comes from the solid index, which follows the extensive bibliography (sectioned by topic). Only the lack of proof of his point (and the remaining arguments built on that assumption) draws the rating down a smidge.
I added this book to my "to be read" pile roughly a year ago, and was spurred to read it by goodreads "TBR twins" program, where they pair up two people who want to read the same book. I look forward to reading Harsha's review of this same book and comparing notes.
In the first portion of the book, "Mad" Max (as he is known among physicists) lays out much of what we know about the universe, making the case actual parallel universes (as opposed to theoretical). The first chapter even contains a quick chart showing which chapters should be read by the science curious, the hard-core reader of popular science, and physicists.
In parts 2 & 3, he dives into the math, coming around to idea that math doesn't just represent the universe, but that it *is* the universe (a 1:1 mapping, if you will). I don't think all physical processes can be represented by math at present, but it is an interesting thought. The math that doesn't seem to fit our universe? That's for parallel universes. How many of them have life like us? Probably a very small quantity, because the physics of our universe is especially suited to our life (aka anthropomorphic). Unfortunately, the argument for this particular thought stops at this point - perhaps it was too much math for a popular book? - and this point is short of proving the assumption.
As would be appropriate in a book about life, the universe, and everything, Douglas Adams is quoted on nine different occasions. This fact comes from the solid index, which follows the extensive bibliography (sectioned by topic). Only the lack of proof of his point (and the remaining arguments built on that assumption) draws the rating down a smidge.
I added this book to my "to be read" pile roughly a year ago, and was spurred to read it by goodreads "TBR twins" program, where they pair up two people who want to read the same book. I look forward to reading Harsha's review of this same book and comparing notes.
kafiro_ka_kafka's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
mysterious
medium-paced
4.0
Yeah! Science biiiyaaatttchhhhh
jesusjimsa's review against another edition
2.0
I started this book because Pewdiepie recommended it in one of his Book Review videos and I wanted to read some non-fiction book but it has felt like homework reading this.
There are some parts that I found interesting, specially the “Physics history” ones or the less technical ones. But most of the book was just too complicated for someone who stopped studying Physics years ago like me.
I have seen that this book has great reviews by other people so I can imagine that if you already had an interest in Physics and Mathematics, this book can be really interesting but if that’s not the case, you should avoid it.
There are some parts that I found interesting, specially the “Physics history” ones or the less technical ones. But most of the book was just too complicated for someone who stopped studying Physics years ago like me.
I have seen that this book has great reviews by other people so I can imagine that if you already had an interest in Physics and Mathematics, this book can be really interesting but if that’s not the case, you should avoid it.
frakalot's review
adventurous
challenging
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
4.0
This book did not achieve what it set out to do, for me anyway. Ironically, I had already convinced myself that the universe was actually mathematical long before picking up the book. I remain convinced, although not by any of the arguments that I read in this book. There is a lot to discover and ponder in this book but it just didn't go about arguing the main premise in a way that I would call effective. It was however, continually fascinating, well written and easy to follow, plus the end of chapter summaries are perfect.
Confession Time: This is an example of the third time being the charm, for me. I genuinely can't recall where I came across Tegmark, but I imagine seeing a lecture or interview or something similar on YouTube which prompted me to get the book. I remember being very excited about this particular book, about the concept. But the first two times I started reading 'Our Mathematical Universe' I didn't make it to halfway. I couldn't really pinpoint why I was struggling and I was genuinely a little disappointed with myself.
Anyway, I think I've figured it out. This time while reading along, I had just started to think that it was feeling less like a physics book and rather more like an autobiography, when Max then confirmed it in writing by stating that actually, an autobiographical account was the publisher's exact intention. Well. There it is. I always struggle with biographical texts and I nearly decided to bench it a third time. I'm glad that I didn't, the personal approach had started to bother me but the feeling completely vanished when we reached the physics content.
Another initial disappointment which may have contributed to my earlier reading failures is that the book does start by covering some, not necessarily basic, but certainly very well known concepts of cosmology. This is indeed necessary for the book to reach wider audiences but for me it felt like a hurdle on the way to finding out what Max would say about the mathematical nature of the universe. To be fair to the book, there is actually a very clear direction at the beginning, for which chapters certain types of readers may want to skip and Frankly I should have listened to that advice but of course I didn't because I wouldn't feel like I'd read the book if I'd skipped any of it. Crushed between insignificant arbitrary personal standards and innate personal preference.
If it seems like I didn't enjoy the book, that's incorrect. I enjoyed the book quite a lot. And I got something unexpected out of it, which is always a treat. I found that the book did more to convince me of the validity of Multiverse hypotheses than it did to demonstrate its own hypothesis. I think that some of this comes down to nuances in our personal definitions of mathematics and perhaps a lot more of it relates to the disparity between mine and Tegmark's extremely divergent experience with Mathematical applications.
Confession Time: This is an example of the third time being the charm, for me. I genuinely can't recall where I came across Tegmark, but I imagine seeing a lecture or interview or something similar on YouTube which prompted me to get the book. I remember being very excited about this particular book, about the concept. But the first two times I started reading 'Our Mathematical Universe' I didn't make it to halfway. I couldn't really pinpoint why I was struggling and I was genuinely a little disappointed with myself.
Anyway, I think I've figured it out. This time while reading along, I had just started to think that it was feeling less like a physics book and rather more like an autobiography, when Max then confirmed it in writing by stating that actually, an autobiographical account was the publisher's exact intention. Well. There it is. I always struggle with biographical texts and I nearly decided to bench it a third time. I'm glad that I didn't, the personal approach had started to bother me but the feeling completely vanished when we reached the physics content.
Another initial disappointment which may have contributed to my earlier reading failures is that the book does start by covering some, not necessarily basic, but certainly very well known concepts of cosmology. This is indeed necessary for the book to reach wider audiences but for me it felt like a hurdle on the way to finding out what Max would say about the mathematical nature of the universe. To be fair to the book, there is actually a very clear direction at the beginning, for which chapters certain types of readers may want to skip and Frankly I should have listened to that advice but of course I didn't because I wouldn't feel like I'd read the book if I'd skipped any of it. Crushed between insignificant arbitrary personal standards and innate personal preference.
If it seems like I didn't enjoy the book, that's incorrect. I enjoyed the book quite a lot. And I got something unexpected out of it, which is always a treat. I found that the book did more to convince me of the validity of Multiverse hypotheses than it did to demonstrate its own hypothesis. I think that some of this comes down to nuances in our personal definitions of mathematics and perhaps a lot more of it relates to the disparity between mine and Tegmark's extremely divergent experience with Mathematical applications.
bashar_aldamairah's review against another edition
5.0
Easily one of the best books I've read.
A great book to learn a little about everything, and a great introduction to some of the biggest topics that I wasn't aware of; The string theory, the wave function collapse.. etc. I hate physics a lot , and math annoys me, but I heard that this book takes everything cool in physics and explains it in a non boring way, and I had my doubts, but it turned out better than anything I expected. It was genuinely such an amazing read.
A great book to learn a little about everything, and a great introduction to some of the biggest topics that I wasn't aware of; The string theory, the wave function collapse.. etc. I hate physics a lot , and math annoys me, but I heard that this book takes everything cool in physics and explains it in a non boring way, and I had my doubts, but it turned out better than anything I expected. It was genuinely such an amazing read.