Scan barcode
ropalimpia's review against another edition
It's a very dry read. I know it's a science book, but I prefer a more engaging voice when discussing scientific concepts.
joyfulme's review against another edition
4.0
I chanced on this book in my local library and found a fun read for my highschoolers- a lively layman’s tour of the intersectionality of neural, comparative, developmental, and behavioral psychology; with physics (including laws of thermodynamics and time/space theories); astronomy; the history of timekeeping technology; atmospheric presence of radioactive carbon… kind of like the meeting of Einstein and Piaget (of which there is a brief account.) I love how this will appeal to multiple disciplines that my kids love, growing their understanding without boring them.
Possible parental concerns: The effects of drugs (TSH in particular) on perception of time, and a singular mention of Darwinian theory (plus a passing suggestion of theafterlife being an invention to cope with death). No language or sexuality.
Possible parental concerns: The effects of drugs (TSH in particular) on perception of time, and a singular mention of Darwinian theory (plus a passing suggestion of theafterlife being an invention to cope with death). No language or sexuality.
elizabethbest's review against another edition
5.0
I won this book in a goodreads giveaway competition (advance reading copy). I really enjoyed reading this book; it has been very thought-provoking. The various theories are laid out clearly and objectively and it found them all very interesting. They have all been researched thoroughly, and widely. It certainly made me question 'time'. I would recommend this to anyone who likes reading to learn.
lbrex's review against another edition
5.0
Dean Buonomano is a neurobiology professor at UCLA and he's published an interesting exploration of physics, neuroscience, and the overlap between the two. I found this very readable and interesting, mostly for its insights into the brain, though Buonomano is also good at boiling down complex physics concepts to make them understandable. For the most part, the book is about how humans are able to experience "mental time travel," i.e. the ability to remember a specific experience in the past and provide it with a timestamp of sorts, and, similarly, to anticipate what we might be doing in the future. I'm not sure that the term "mental time travel" is the best term for what he's discussing, but the book is insightful nonetheless. Ultimately, the book argues convincingly for how consciousness and our conscious sense of the present are largely coherent fictions engineered by the unconscious brain, though they are often approximate and delayed in their renderings of the outside world. If you're a fan of physics or neuroscience, I think you'll find this an interesting read.
ctort's review against another edition
4.0
Great overview of how the fields of physics and neuroscience approach the study of time: how they overlap and where they butt heads. Historical context, thought experiments, and countless research studies form the framework for how our concept of time has evolved across fields of study. Circadian and biological rhythms inform our mental alarm clocks, but we also employ various levels of more precise neuro-timers to properly parse speech, music and memories. Sundials, crystal quartz watches and atomic clocks capture the external, more objective passage of time, though Einstein's theories of relativity counter any hope of leaning on time as an unqualified absolute.
One dichotomy I found super interesting is the battle of presentism vs eternalism. The former holds that the present, the NOW, is the only moment grounded in reality, while the past and future are inaccessible and only exist in our memories or mental projections, respectively. This is the theory supported by our conscious experience - we feel that each passing moment, each NOW, is somehow qualitatively different than any moment in time not currently being experienced. Eternalism on the other hand, posits that time is the fourth dimension and reality can be presented as a 4D variation of a cube --like a block of cheese where the present moment is merely a slice. This is the view supported by modern physics, because time is relative to the observer and there is no evidence to suggest (beyond our intuition) that the present moment is any more real than any other moment in time. The world of scifi rejoices.
One dichotomy I found super interesting is the battle of presentism vs eternalism. The former holds that the present, the NOW, is the only moment grounded in reality, while the past and future are inaccessible and only exist in our memories or mental projections, respectively. This is the theory supported by our conscious experience - we feel that each passing moment, each NOW, is somehow qualitatively different than any moment in time not currently being experienced. Eternalism on the other hand, posits that time is the fourth dimension and reality can be presented as a 4D variation of a cube --like a block of cheese where the present moment is merely a slice. This is the view supported by modern physics, because time is relative to the observer and there is no evidence to suggest (beyond our intuition) that the present moment is any more real than any other moment in time. The world of scifi rejoices.
gw7's review against another edition
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
4.0
From the title I thought that this book was going to be written more in the style of Katie Mack's 'Then End of Everything', high level with a cool 'plot line' that engages the lay reader in this idea that 'your brain is a time machine!' The main thing stopping this from being that is that it is much much further away from a 'popular' science book. Of course this can be seen in the high brow points being made and the complex science being discussed, but I personally felt it more in the style of the rhetoric- the author presented an idea, described it, often gave the reader experiments (either mental or physical) that they could do to prove it for themselves, and then... went on to refute seemingly every argument or proposition made against this theory ever. Which, of course, is necessary in science and scientific papers and presentations but... is it necessary in a popular science book? I don't think so. Written into a popular science book and it makes it feel like the conversational monologue-ing of the member of the family on the opposite of the political spectrum than you that you see once a year at Christmas.
That being said, the points were good, and valid, and I learned things. But I also found that a lot of the thoughts I had while reading this book were revelations and new ideas about other topics and ideas- that is to say realisations from my subconscious (while my conscious was supposedly focusing on this book). Ideas that I probably wouldn't have had without the book, but nevertheless, I did find it hard to concentrate on (because of that and the fact that I had to stop every two second to understand some scientific principle.
Overall it felt like the author started with an idea that begs a plotted exploration (your brain is a time machine), explored every scientific question in relation to said idea (that, while they weren't, seemed at times tangential) and then tacked on the conclusion to the first idea as if it were the satisfying conclusion to the initial proposed story line... even though the middle (everything barring the title and the last few pages) were written like detached factual experiences that had no story about them relating to the overall 'plot' that we were seemingly promised.
None of which is to say it was good or bad because of those factors, just may not be something you're interested in.
That being said, the points were good, and valid, and I learned things. But I also found that a lot of the thoughts I had while reading this book were revelations and new ideas about other topics and ideas- that is to say realisations from my subconscious (while my conscious was supposedly focusing on this book). Ideas that I probably wouldn't have had without the book, but nevertheless, I did find it hard to concentrate on (because of that and the fact that I had to stop every two second to understand some scientific principle.
Overall it felt like the author started with an idea that begs a plotted exploration (your brain is a time machine), explored every scientific question in relation to said idea (that, while they weren't, seemed at times tangential) and then tacked on the conclusion to the first idea as if it were the satisfying conclusion to the initial proposed story line... even though the middle (everything barring the title and the last few pages) were written like detached factual experiences that had no story about them relating to the overall 'plot' that we were seemingly promised.
None of which is to say it was good or bad because of those factors, just may not be something you're interested in.
leonardalovric's review against another edition
I was interested in the theme, but I got bored eventually... Planning to revisit this book, I feel like it deserves a second chance.