rossbm's review against another edition
3.0
(Listened as audiobook)
What's it about?
Principally, it is a book of philosophy, focusing on epistemology. Deutsche talks about how science is the search of "good explanations", and how a good explanation is "hard to vary". He bashes empiricism and induction, drawing upon Popper.
He says that people are "universal explainers". The book is optimistic, making the case that knowledge creation can be unbounded, and that we might be on the path to creating knowledge infinitely. He dismisses pessimistic arguments such as the "spaceship Earth" metaphor as Earth being a well designed ecosystem that humans are mucking up.
He also talks about many world theories.
What did I think?
I liked the epistemological aspects. I liked the optimism. I though that the book was too long (20 hours in audio), and bit unstructured. I didn't care for/got lost when he talked about the many world theories, although I did enjoy his Infinity Hotel metaphor.
He used the word "parochial" a lot; when he uses it, I guess he means small, insignificant, close minded, limited etc.. It is a not a common word, so it stood out that it was used so often. Also, "transmutation".
What's it about?
Principally, it is a book of philosophy, focusing on epistemology. Deutsche talks about how science is the search of "good explanations", and how a good explanation is "hard to vary". He bashes empiricism and induction, drawing upon Popper.
He says that people are "universal explainers". The book is optimistic, making the case that knowledge creation can be unbounded, and that we might be on the path to creating knowledge infinitely. He dismisses pessimistic arguments such as the "spaceship Earth" metaphor as Earth being a well designed ecosystem that humans are mucking up.
He also talks about many world theories.
What did I think?
I liked the epistemological aspects. I liked the optimism. I though that the book was too long (20 hours in audio), and bit unstructured. I didn't care for/got lost when he talked about the many world theories, although I did enjoy his Infinity Hotel metaphor.
He used the word "parochial" a lot; when he uses it, I guess he means small, insignificant, close minded, limited etc.. It is a not a common word, so it stood out that it was used so often. Also, "transmutation".
addypap's review against another edition
2.0
I'm sure David Deutsch is a really smart dude, but I couldn't get into this book. From the description and audio preview I didn't get that this was 90% focused on philosophy and ramblings. I listened to about a quarter of the book before I cried uncle. Not a bad book, just not my jam. Did not finish.
rhyslindmark's review against another edition
4.0
Impressive interdisciplinary work that looks at how humans produce knowledge. It's a modern take on Kuhn and Popper.
I especially enjoyed the first 1/3rd (defining concepts like intellectual reach) and last 1/3rd (how memes evolved) of the book. The middle 1/3rd was all about quantum physics and the multiverse. I skimmed it.
I'll need to re-read to make sure I understand all of his isomorphisms (e.g. why Lamarckism is equal to empiricism).
I especially enjoyed the first 1/3rd (defining concepts like intellectual reach) and last 1/3rd (how memes evolved) of the book. The middle 1/3rd was all about quantum physics and the multiverse. I skimmed it.
I'll need to re-read to make sure I understand all of his isomorphisms (e.g. why Lamarckism is equal to empiricism).
brannigan's review against another edition
3.0
While it started engagingly enough - a promising, heady mix of science and slightly idiosyncratic enlightenment philosophy - as the chapters wore on, I began to rapidly lose faith in Deutsch.
The first few chapters introduced me to some really interesting (and slightly iconoclastic) arguments that turned on their heads concepts I had previously treated as axiomatic, such as the value of empiricism as the engine of scientific progress, the relative insignificance of the human experience relative to the scope of the universe. However, I eventually found the real scientific meat of the book to be lacking. In a nutshell, Deutsch should really stick to physics. His chapters dealing with politics and aesthetics in particular lack nuance, and his disdain for traditional philosophy in general comes across as a little arrogant and unjustly dismissive. Particularly laughable were his unambiguous conclusions that a) electoral systems based on a plurality principle are superior to proportional representation systems, because compromise is inherently bad, and b) objective standards of beauty undoubtedly exist because everybody likes flowers.
(I should lay my cards on the table here - my undergrad degree is in Philosophy & Politics, so I may be getting a little territorial over this jumped-up physicist's intrusion into my intellectual patches.)
I was also slightly bothered by his habit of presenting certain scientific theories as canon, e.g. in his chapters on evolutionary biology where he offers no plausible alternative to the Selfish Gene model (even though I subscribe to this model, it is by no means unanimously accepted among mainstream biologists). Slightly worrying too was Deutsch's misrepresentation of this theory on p.384: "...while organisms are nothing but the slaves of their genes..." - this is emphatically not what Dawkins had in mind.
Still, I did engage with the unifying theme of enlightened infinity in all of its guises, and the optimistic message that sees science not as something passive (as in the empiricist notion of scientists as mere observers of knowledge that is already 'out there' in the world), but a process of active knowledge creation. If anything, it sure makes me feel a bit better to be human.
The first few chapters introduced me to some really interesting (and slightly iconoclastic) arguments that turned on their heads concepts I had previously treated as axiomatic, such as the value of empiricism as the engine of scientific progress, the relative insignificance of the human experience relative to the scope of the universe. However, I eventually found the real scientific meat of the book to be lacking. In a nutshell, Deutsch should really stick to physics. His chapters dealing with politics and aesthetics in particular lack nuance, and his disdain for traditional philosophy in general comes across as a little arrogant and unjustly dismissive. Particularly laughable were his unambiguous conclusions that a) electoral systems based on a plurality principle are superior to proportional representation systems, because compromise is inherently bad, and b) objective standards of beauty undoubtedly exist because everybody likes flowers.
(I should lay my cards on the table here - my undergrad degree is in Philosophy & Politics, so I may be getting a little territorial over this jumped-up physicist's intrusion into my intellectual patches.)
I was also slightly bothered by his habit of presenting certain scientific theories as canon, e.g. in his chapters on evolutionary biology where he offers no plausible alternative to the Selfish Gene model (even though I subscribe to this model, it is by no means unanimously accepted among mainstream biologists). Slightly worrying too was Deutsch's misrepresentation of this theory on p.384: "...while organisms are nothing but the slaves of their genes..." - this is emphatically not what Dawkins had in mind.
Still, I did engage with the unifying theme of enlightened infinity in all of its guises, and the optimistic message that sees science not as something passive (as in the empiricist notion of scientists as mere observers of knowledge that is already 'out there' in the world), but a process of active knowledge creation. If anything, it sure makes me feel a bit better to be human.
sarsaparillo's review against another edition
4.0
This is an exciting epistemological thesis from a deep thinker — an account of how knowledge is acquired, according to Deutsch, and the practical, moral and cultural consequences of the theory. The book begins with a tour and critique of the main epistemic positions, including a demolition of empiricism and induction. Later in the book, logical positivism meets the same fate. But this isn't dry argumentation. Deutsch draws on fundamental physics, science fiction and anecdote to makes his points, and provides juicy crash courses in some of the relevant subjects along the way.
Deutsch's tone is confident, bordering on arrogant. He states some conjectures as if they're facts, such as the existence of the multiverse. Opposing viewpoints are termed "misconceptions" in his neatly laid out scheme.
The primary building block of the philosophy here is the "explanation", which is an account of why the world is the way it is. Explanations can be ranked in at least two ways. An explanation is "good" if it can't be varied by much without it failing. It is precise and non-arbitrary. This is related to Ockham's famous Razor. Another measure of an explanation is its "reach". An explanation has reach if it is able to explain phenomena beyond that for which it was originally developed. Prime examples are physical models such as Newton's and Einstein's which can explain the universe well beyond the planet on which their inventor's were confined — their reach is universal.
"Problems are soluble," is the progressive mantra Deutsch repeats throughout the book. Solutions also have wide reach when they solve problems beyond their original target. The evolution of the human mind is prototypical example here. It evolved solve "parochial" problems (this word has a special significance to Deutsch) but ended up becoming a "universal explainer". That is, a "person," using Deutsch's broad definition of that term, which would also apply to any artificial intelligence or alien species that have the same quality of far-reaching explanation generation.
This is the basis for an fascinating exploration various fields of thought, on which Deutsche gives his take. The "principle of mediocrity" and the "spaceship earth" perspective are taken to task, convincingly, for not giving humans their due as the only known universal explainers. Spaceship Earth is the notion that the planet is a finely-tuned human preserving machine, and that by disturbing its function, we imperil ourselves. Deutsch points out that the Earth is, by our own standards, naturally hostile to not only human life but to all species, and that we have only ourselves to thank for the comfort and prosperity we now enjoy. Later, the related notion of "sustainability" is subjected to similar treatment, but one gets the impression that Deutsche is an environmentalist progressive — he is just wary of the conservatism inherent in conservation.
The culture among quantum theorists in the 20th century is likewise criticized for its conservative instrumental attitudes, at odds with science in general.
There are some mind-bending thoughts on mathematics and computer science here. His explanation of why only digital computers (and opposed to analogue) can be universalised, due to error correction being possible with discrete systems, was new to me despite being a computer science buff. He also makes the startling claim that mathematical proof is a physical process of computation, and that the types of theorems that can be proved is dependent on the physical laws of our universe. An example of this are the algorithms only quantum computers can perform, but not classical ones.
The concept of "memes" spends a lot of time in centre stage, and a qualitative comparison is made between ideas and genes. There is an interesting theory on the use of memes in "dynamic" societies (such as the post-enlightenment west), and "static" societies (almost every other time and place). In the former there is a culture of creativity and criticism: memes continually change and - through a process not unlike natural selection - improve. In the latter, memes are self-preserving, encouraging faithful replication and punishing deviation from social norms.
Deutsche is a big fan of the Enlightenment, seeing it as the only time the human race has been able to sustain a "dynamic" society for more than a couple of generations, thanks to a combination of peaceful but self-correcting political institutions with a creative/critical scientific culture. There are clear echos of Pinker's Enlightenment Now, and I've heard Pinker acknowledge this book as an influence. As for influence on this book, Deutsch wears his admiration for Karl Popper on his sleeve, and it feels like one of this book's aims is to carry Popper's torch.
The somewhat silly-sounding "Infinity" in the title is the idea that humanity's ability to explain things and solve problems is unbounded. It is not just a flowery title but a recurrent theme throughout. This is a profoundly optimistic book. But, like Pinker's, it could easily be misunderstood as naive. However, both books when read carefully can be seen as optimistic only in our potential. There is an acknowledged risk that any number of misadventures might steer humanity off the path the infinity and back to static misery, or oblivion.
One thing I found frustrating were the occasional allusions to the notions of emergent phenomena, and levels of abstraction. Deutsch seemed to saying that these high-level descriptions of the world are in some sense "objectively" true. But it felt like these ideas were never fully fleshed out. Perhaps they can be found in another book?
Despite a few misgivings I would highly recommend this book for an interesting perspective on the universe, knowledge, and us.
Deutsch's tone is confident, bordering on arrogant. He states some conjectures as if they're facts, such as the existence of the multiverse. Opposing viewpoints are termed "misconceptions" in his neatly laid out scheme.
The primary building block of the philosophy here is the "explanation", which is an account of why the world is the way it is. Explanations can be ranked in at least two ways. An explanation is "good" if it can't be varied by much without it failing. It is precise and non-arbitrary. This is related to Ockham's famous Razor. Another measure of an explanation is its "reach". An explanation has reach if it is able to explain phenomena beyond that for which it was originally developed. Prime examples are physical models such as Newton's and Einstein's which can explain the universe well beyond the planet on which their inventor's were confined — their reach is universal.
"Problems are soluble," is the progressive mantra Deutsch repeats throughout the book. Solutions also have wide reach when they solve problems beyond their original target. The evolution of the human mind is prototypical example here. It evolved solve "parochial" problems (this word has a special significance to Deutsch) but ended up becoming a "universal explainer". That is, a "person," using Deutsch's broad definition of that term, which would also apply to any artificial intelligence or alien species that have the same quality of far-reaching explanation generation.
This is the basis for an fascinating exploration various fields of thought, on which Deutsche gives his take. The "principle of mediocrity" and the "spaceship earth" perspective are taken to task, convincingly, for not giving humans their due as the only known universal explainers. Spaceship Earth is the notion that the planet is a finely-tuned human preserving machine, and that by disturbing its function, we imperil ourselves. Deutsch points out that the Earth is, by our own standards, naturally hostile to not only human life but to all species, and that we have only ourselves to thank for the comfort and prosperity we now enjoy. Later, the related notion of "sustainability" is subjected to similar treatment, but one gets the impression that Deutsche is an environmentalist progressive — he is just wary of the conservatism inherent in conservation.
The culture among quantum theorists in the 20th century is likewise criticized for its conservative instrumental attitudes, at odds with science in general.
There are some mind-bending thoughts on mathematics and computer science here. His explanation of why only digital computers (and opposed to analogue) can be universalised, due to error correction being possible with discrete systems, was new to me despite being a computer science buff. He also makes the startling claim that mathematical proof is a physical process of computation, and that the types of theorems that can be proved is dependent on the physical laws of our universe. An example of this are the algorithms only quantum computers can perform, but not classical ones.
The concept of "memes" spends a lot of time in centre stage, and a qualitative comparison is made between ideas and genes. There is an interesting theory on the use of memes in "dynamic" societies (such as the post-enlightenment west), and "static" societies (almost every other time and place). In the former there is a culture of creativity and criticism: memes continually change and - through a process not unlike natural selection - improve. In the latter, memes are self-preserving, encouraging faithful replication and punishing deviation from social norms.
Deutsche is a big fan of the Enlightenment, seeing it as the only time the human race has been able to sustain a "dynamic" society for more than a couple of generations, thanks to a combination of peaceful but self-correcting political institutions with a creative/critical scientific culture. There are clear echos of Pinker's Enlightenment Now, and I've heard Pinker acknowledge this book as an influence. As for influence on this book, Deutsch wears his admiration for Karl Popper on his sleeve, and it feels like one of this book's aims is to carry Popper's torch.
The somewhat silly-sounding "Infinity" in the title is the idea that humanity's ability to explain things and solve problems is unbounded. It is not just a flowery title but a recurrent theme throughout. This is a profoundly optimistic book. But, like Pinker's, it could easily be misunderstood as naive. However, both books when read carefully can be seen as optimistic only in our potential. There is an acknowledged risk that any number of misadventures might steer humanity off the path the infinity and back to static misery, or oblivion.
One thing I found frustrating were the occasional allusions to the notions of emergent phenomena, and levels of abstraction. Deutsch seemed to saying that these high-level descriptions of the world are in some sense "objectively" true. But it felt like these ideas were never fully fleshed out. Perhaps they can be found in another book?
Despite a few misgivings I would highly recommend this book for an interesting perspective on the universe, knowledge, and us.
gnug315's review against another edition
3.0
David excells in logical thinking, has a wide breadth of knowledge and a lot of interesting things to say on a fairly broad range of topics.
He does seem to suffer from the need to exhaust every single possible counterargument to his points in a methodological, borderline autistic way, which can be a bit tiresome in a lenghty book, so I recommend skipping ahead when boredom sets in, as it will invitably do when you think to yourself for the umpteenth time "yes, I get it already."
Personally I would have preferred to have heard him make his points in a more succint manner, but this is a matter of taste and I am sure many people will find great enjoyment in the thoroughness of his explanations.
I especially enjoyed the last two chapters, which pulled the book up from merely OK.
PS. I shudder to think how many instances of the word "parochial" the copy-editor had to take an axe to before we ended up at this version. This greatly distracted me, but I'm a bit neorotic..
He does seem to suffer from the need to exhaust every single possible counterargument to his points in a methodological, borderline autistic way, which can be a bit tiresome in a lenghty book, so I recommend skipping ahead when boredom sets in, as it will invitably do when you think to yourself for the umpteenth time "yes, I get it already."
Personally I would have preferred to have heard him make his points in a more succint manner, but this is a matter of taste and I am sure many people will find great enjoyment in the thoroughness of his explanations.
I especially enjoyed the last two chapters, which pulled the book up from merely OK.
PS. I shudder to think how many instances of the word "parochial" the copy-editor had to take an axe to before we ended up at this version. This greatly distracted me, but I'm a bit neorotic..
david_r_grigg's review against another edition
4.0
Finished this about a week ago, but I'm still thinking about it. Deutsch's earlier book The Fabric of Reality was fascinating and scary by turns as he explores the implications of a "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.
While The Beginning of Infinity touches on this too, mainly in one chapter titled "The Multiverse", the book covers a lot of different ground making it rather uneven, and occasionally a little self-indulgent. For example there's one, rather boring chapter where Deutsch attempts his own Socratic dialogue.
His main thrust, though, is very interesting, and it revolves around two points:
* He denies "The Principle of Mediocrity" which says there is nothing special about humanity, the Earth or its place in the universe. Deutsch points out that the surface of a planet is a highly atypical place in the universe. The typical place is in fact far away from any star. When it comes to humans, he argues that "universal explainers" like humans are a highly significant factor in the cosmos.
* He denies "The Spaceship Earth" hypothesis which says that the Earth is a natural, safe home of humanity (if only we we weren't messing it up). He denies it by pointing out that the Earth is not very well adapted to providing a safe environment for animals like humans. It's only by applying technology over millennia that we have created safe environments for ourselves.
He also spends a lot of time putting the boot into what he calls "static" societies, who try to repress innovations, compared with "dynamic" societies which encourage constant ("unsustainable") innovations. Dynamic societies have really only come into their own since the Enlightenment.
Intriguing stuff, well argued. I'll need to re-read the book sometime in the near future.
alexager5028's review against another edition
5.0
I first read The Beginning of Infinity around 2013. I’ve since decided it’s the best book I’ve ever read. Nothing has shaped my worldview about knowledge and progress to the extent that this has.