Reviews
Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions, by Sabine Hossenfelder
hazmatzo's review
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
This was one of the more fun physics books I’ve read!
The chapter on time blew my mind. All of the philosophical questions discussed with the backing of science! Solipsism, dualism, etc, etc. And I loved the little snippets of conversations with other scientists that the author weaves in to tackle the big topics.
This was my favorite quote:
Entropy counts the different possible micro states. The state of the system is only in one micro state. The statement that it can be in any other state is counter factual. It refers to states that do not exist in reality. They exist only mathematically. We consider them just because we do not know what the true state of the system is. Entropy is thus a measure of our own ignorance, not a measure of the actual state of the system.
Just, wow! I know what entropy is, but I’ve never thought of it exactly that way before.
Is it this book, or the Ocean World by Jacques Cousteau, or Hyperspace by Michiu Kaku that’s my favorite science book of all time? I just don’t know. It’s a tossup!
I may have to reread this book. There was so much there.
leahjanespeare's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Heads up, it would definitely help to have some background on basic classical physics and/or quantum physics if you want to read this.
This book is at the unique intersection of philosophy and physics. It will also likely give you an existential crisis while reading if you are anything but extremely atheist. After all, it may be hard to reckon with the fact that our universe could blink out in an instant, but statistically, it's just as likely to do that as keep existing.
The author prefaces that she is scientific-based to the core, and side-eyes commonly accepted beliefs even in the scientific community. For example, the Many-Worlds Interpretation in quantum physics often falls under the scientific umbrella but there are no scientific data behind it. From her point of view, she considers this to be an ascientific (not anti-scientific just adjacent to it) theory. Basically, believe that all you want, you could be right, but as of now, there's no scientific evidence behind that so she doesn't consider it legit. Therefore, from what I understood she prescribes to the Copenhagen Interpretation, due to what we can observe (haha quantum joke) and based on current fundamental laws of physics. All that being said, she also quotes Feynman for his famous "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - something that remains true today.
Other ascientific topics she includes are things like whether we have free will (she says scientifically, technically, we do not), and how that relates to moral responsibility. Basically, if we know we don't have free will, that does not excuse us to be assholes and claim we just can't help it.
And the idea of duality- that there is something more to us humans than the strictly scientific/biologic evidence shows us. I, personally, as a pretty strict agnostic person, think there is something 'other' in our conscience. The author does not prescribe to this theory at all. But with AI advancements made every week or so right now, I may have to reexamine my stance on this idea of what separates us from other species. Cause if they can make art, what makes us anything more than fancy computers..
To counter her extreme standpoint, she includes some interviews with other scientists who do not share her same views on a number of subjects covered, creating a good argumentative dialogue and showing how little we really know and how often theories change - what the scientific community does best. Remember, even very very fundamental laws we take for granted as being "fact" have unexplained holes and exceptions, mostly when it comes to the quantum side of things. Therefore, ARE they still fact?
I also like how she argues that math is our current best understanding of how the universe works and how to interpret nature, yes, but by no means does that mean it will forever hold that top place. As someone who has studied a lot of classical physics and quantum physics and for the life of me cannot even comprehend any of the math equations associated with the field, this is very validating.
This book is at the unique intersection of philosophy and physics. It will also likely give you an existential crisis while reading if you are anything but extremely atheist. After all, it may be hard to reckon with the fact that our universe could blink out in an instant, but statistically, it's just as likely to do that as keep existing.
The author prefaces that she is scientific-based to the core, and side-eyes commonly accepted beliefs even in the scientific community. For example, the Many-Worlds Interpretation in quantum physics often falls under the scientific umbrella but there are no scientific data behind it. From her point of view, she considers this to be an ascientific (not anti-scientific just adjacent to it) theory. Basically, believe that all you want, you could be right, but as of now, there's no scientific evidence behind that so she doesn't consider it legit. Therefore, from what I understood she prescribes to the Copenhagen Interpretation, due to what we can observe (haha quantum joke) and based on current fundamental laws of physics. All that being said, she also quotes Feynman for his famous "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - something that remains true today.
Other ascientific topics she includes are things like whether we have free will (she says scientifically, technically, we do not), and how that relates to moral responsibility. Basically, if we know we don't have free will, that does not excuse us to be assholes and claim we just can't help it.
And the idea of duality- that there is something more to us humans than the strictly scientific/biologic evidence shows us. I, personally, as a pretty strict agnostic person, think there is something 'other' in our conscience. The author does not prescribe to this theory at all. But with AI advancements made every week or so right now, I may have to reexamine my stance on this idea of what separates us from other species. Cause if they can make art, what makes us anything more than fancy computers..
To counter her extreme standpoint, she includes some interviews with other scientists who do not share her same views on a number of subjects covered, creating a good argumentative dialogue and showing how little we really know and how often theories change - what the scientific community does best. Remember, even very very fundamental laws we take for granted as being "fact" have unexplained holes and exceptions, mostly when it comes to the quantum side of things. Therefore, ARE they still fact?
I also like how she argues that math is our current best understanding of how the universe works and how to interpret nature, yes, but by no means does that mean it will forever hold that top place. As someone who has studied a lot of classical physics and quantum physics and for the life of me cannot even comprehend any of the math equations associated with the field, this is very validating.
grapes_are_nutritious's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.5
Premise is interesting and information is explained well, but I couldnt getviver her tone. It read like an instruction manual at times and didnt leave any room for reflection or discussion. Enjoyed the interviews