Scan barcode
meedot's review against another edition
4.0
Good, despite the digressions.
This book is exhaustive, but in its attempt to be so, it's also somewhat exhausting. The author digresses and meanders, offering personal tidbits along the way. All in all, a good if somewhat dry read that perhaps at 100 pages shorter could have been 5 stars.
This book is exhaustive, but in its attempt to be so, it's also somewhat exhausting. The author digresses and meanders, offering personal tidbits along the way. All in all, a good if somewhat dry read that perhaps at 100 pages shorter could have been 5 stars.
vegantrav's review against another edition
4.0
In Why Does the World Exist?, Jim Holt addresses the perennial question: why is there something rather than nothing?
Holt interviews a number of different thinkers: philosophers, scientists, and theologians, engaging with them and their ideas on why being (something) has triumphed over nothing. Holt also offers his own personal ruminations on the ideas of those whom he interviews and, in the end, provides his own answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing.
Holt's conversation with the German philosopher of science Adolf Grunbaum was one my favorite interviews. Grunbaum argues that there is nothing at all mysterious in existence: he professes to be not in the least amazed or astounded that something exists rather than nothing. Finding it puzzling that there is something instead of nothing, Grunbaum argues, is a bias of Christianity, arising out of its doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Only those infected with this Christian idea, Grunbaum the crotchety atheist avers, would think that nothing should otherwise be the norm thus rendering the existence of something as in need of explanation. Grunbaum simply takes it for granted that something—namely this world—exists and is not at all amazed that the world exists. The existence of the world is the default ontological position for Grunbaum, not the nothingness that those who ask the question “Why is there something instead of nothing?” seem to think is the default position.
The scientific interviews provide nothing really new to anyone who reads popular scientific books by the likes of Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Freeman Dyson, and Michio Kaku: there is much talk of the multiverse, string theory, quantum fluctuations, and what may caused the Big Bang and whether the Big Bang was a unique event.
Another of the interviews that I particularly enjoyed was that of Derek Parfit, the British philosopher most well known for his works on personal identity and moral philosophy. Holt uses Parfit’s more recent work on the problem of why there is something rather than nothing to arrive at his own solution to the problem of how the universe came to be. It’s quite an intriguing answer to the question, but I don’t want to spoil anything, so I will not mention the solution at which Holt arrives—not to mention that it’s a rather complex argument that would take me some time to explicate here. I will say that I'm not convinced that Holt actually solves the problem of why there is something rather than nothing, but he, utilizing Parfit, provides a rather ingenious approach.
In point of fact, I myself tend to side with Grunbaum in thinking that there is no particular reason to think that being (something) is necessarily inferior (in terms of needing an explanation) to nothingness: I’m not really convinced that we should be surprised at our own existence or that something exists rather than nothing. I think the idea that something exists being the default ontological position makes a great deal of sense.
I'm also in the camp of those who think that it may just be a brute fact that there is something rather than nothing, and we humans may very likely never have an answer to this question that is completely intellectually satisfying: there may be some facts about existence—namely, the very fact of existence—that cannot be explained.
The final sections of the book address the problems of the nature of the self and the extinction of the self at death, and these are also fascinating. Holt addresses the problems with trying to define exactly what the self is, and he draws extensively on the thought of my favorite philosopher, David Hume, as well as upon the thought of a contemporary philosopher, Thomas Nagel.
Overall, this is a completely absorbing book. It’s especially a great book for anyone who is interested in metaphysical speculations on the ultimate nature of reality and of the self. It is a quick and easy read even for the layperson who has no philosophical training and no scientific background, and Holt is an engaging writer who presents the subject in a light yet still erudite fashion. I very much enjoyed this book and definitely recommend it.
Holt interviews a number of different thinkers: philosophers, scientists, and theologians, engaging with them and their ideas on why being (something) has triumphed over nothing. Holt also offers his own personal ruminations on the ideas of those whom he interviews and, in the end, provides his own answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing.
Holt's conversation with the German philosopher of science Adolf Grunbaum was one my favorite interviews. Grunbaum argues that there is nothing at all mysterious in existence: he professes to be not in the least amazed or astounded that something exists rather than nothing. Finding it puzzling that there is something instead of nothing, Grunbaum argues, is a bias of Christianity, arising out of its doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Only those infected with this Christian idea, Grunbaum the crotchety atheist avers, would think that nothing should otherwise be the norm thus rendering the existence of something as in need of explanation. Grunbaum simply takes it for granted that something—namely this world—exists and is not at all amazed that the world exists. The existence of the world is the default ontological position for Grunbaum, not the nothingness that those who ask the question “Why is there something instead of nothing?” seem to think is the default position.
The scientific interviews provide nothing really new to anyone who reads popular scientific books by the likes of Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Freeman Dyson, and Michio Kaku: there is much talk of the multiverse, string theory, quantum fluctuations, and what may caused the Big Bang and whether the Big Bang was a unique event.
Another of the interviews that I particularly enjoyed was that of Derek Parfit, the British philosopher most well known for his works on personal identity and moral philosophy. Holt uses Parfit’s more recent work on the problem of why there is something rather than nothing to arrive at his own solution to the problem of how the universe came to be. It’s quite an intriguing answer to the question, but I don’t want to spoil anything, so I will not mention the solution at which Holt arrives—not to mention that it’s a rather complex argument that would take me some time to explicate here. I will say that I'm not convinced that Holt actually solves the problem of why there is something rather than nothing, but he, utilizing Parfit, provides a rather ingenious approach.
In point of fact, I myself tend to side with Grunbaum in thinking that there is no particular reason to think that being (something) is necessarily inferior (in terms of needing an explanation) to nothingness: I’m not really convinced that we should be surprised at our own existence or that something exists rather than nothing. I think the idea that something exists being the default ontological position makes a great deal of sense.
I'm also in the camp of those who think that it may just be a brute fact that there is something rather than nothing, and we humans may very likely never have an answer to this question that is completely intellectually satisfying: there may be some facts about existence—namely, the very fact of existence—that cannot be explained.
The final sections of the book address the problems of the nature of the self and the extinction of the self at death, and these are also fascinating. Holt addresses the problems with trying to define exactly what the self is, and he draws extensively on the thought of my favorite philosopher, David Hume, as well as upon the thought of a contemporary philosopher, Thomas Nagel.
Overall, this is a completely absorbing book. It’s especially a great book for anyone who is interested in metaphysical speculations on the ultimate nature of reality and of the self. It is a quick and easy read even for the layperson who has no philosophical training and no scientific background, and Holt is an engaging writer who presents the subject in a light yet still erudite fashion. I very much enjoyed this book and definitely recommend it.
sevenlefts's review against another edition
2.0
Holt sets out to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" To find out, he speaks with philosophers, theologians, writers, and physicists. I have to admit that much of the thinking went over my head. I thought the later chapters about what constitutes the idea of "I" and the self pretty interesting. His letter to an Oxford professor explaining how he thinks he might have worked out the answer would require many more re-readings, I'm afraid, before it would start to sink in. I think I'll just exist for now, and concentrate on being something rather than nothing.
blairmahoney's review against another edition
4.0
It's a fascinating subject and Holt is an engaging guide through the ideas of a range of eminent physicists and philosophers who have pondered the question of why there is something rather than nothing. It get get a little samey at times and the interview with John Updike seems a little superfluous, there mostly because Holt really likes him, but the book works well overall. The end is quite moving.
infinimata's review against another edition
4.0
Fun, if scattershot (and that by design) overview of a key philosophical problem. My take: the world has no choice but to exist, as there is no genuine alternative.
paocampo_21's review against another edition
4.0
So, Jim Holt basically goes around asking people why the heck the world exists (philosophers, physicists, writers, etc.) . It's like having him as your buddy, telling you all about these conversations and what each person throws at him. And here's the cool part – he doesn't force a single answer on you. You're left to chew on all these different perspectives and figure out what you think. It's like having a laid-back chat with a friend who's into deep thoughts, and it makes you do some pondering on your own terms.
warrensampson's review against another edition
4.0
This was a good read with lots of interesting views presented. Definitely thought provoking and rather enjoyable.
ben_r's review against another edition
5.0
This is a mystery with no answers, no resolution. But a must read if you seek any kind of meaning.
joeholmes's review against another edition
5.0
Holt has the rare ability to anticipate my questions and objections, just as I'm scratching my head in puzzlement or shaking it in disagreement, an essential quality in a book that digs deep into contemporary philosophy, theology and physics. Though Holt never answers the title question (you were hoping he would succeed where centuries of thinkers have failed?), he demonstrates why the question is so unanswerable.