ckehoe79's review
3.0
Interesting look at a genius and the ideas he surrounded himself with. I thought that there was too much talk of other colleagues and although his prowess with mathematics was carefully considered, I felt that too much time was spent on his health and mental states.
camebrew's review
informative
medium-paced
3.5
Gödel is such a compelling figure and it is so cool to see titans of physics, mathematics, and computer science be absolutely wowed when encountering him. This first quote I feel really sums up Gödel’s view of reality and humanity’s place in the universe. I also loved how enthralled he was at the idea of living lives outside of this realm.
The mind was based on far fewer physical foundations, and far more spiritual influences, than the twentieth century wanted to believe. The medieval thinkers had been right to look upon mental illness as a "spiritual infestation." Eventually the truth will be discovered even though science is headed in a materialistic direction for the foreseeable future.
…
Einstein said his own work by then did not amount to much, but he came into the office "just to have the privilege of being permitted to walk home with Kurt Gödel.”
3,4
If the experience of the lapse of time can exist without an objective lapse of time, no reason can be given why an objective lapse of time should be assumed at all.
227
In Place of limits on human knowledge and certainty, he saw only the irreplaceable uniqueness of the human spirit.
280
The mind was based on far fewer physical foundations, and far more spiritual influences, than the twentieth century wanted to believe. The medieval thinkers had been right to look upon mental illness as a "spiritual infestation." Eventually the truth will be discovered even though science is headed in a materialistic direction for the foreseeable future.
…
Einstein said his own work by then did not amount to much, but he came into the office "just to have the privilege of being permitted to walk home with Kurt Gödel.”
3,4
If the experience of the lapse of time can exist without an objective lapse of time, no reason can be given why an objective lapse of time should be assumed at all.
227
In Place of limits on human knowledge and certainty, he saw only the irreplaceable uniqueness of the human spirit.
280
miguelf's review
4.0
Did not know much about Gödel before picking this one up and was pleasantly rewarded to read and listen about an interesting life first in a very classic scientific education in Vienna and then the flight to and his involvement in the milieu in mid 20th century Princeton. The author was able to convey the mental anguish he obviously suffered and the sense of life with his ‘washerwoman’ wife and famous friendships. Solid and rewarding biography and really great early descriptions of early 20th century life in Vienna.
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
Kurt Gödel ranks with the likes of Karl Friedrich Gauss and George Cantor as among the world’s greatest mathematicians. And now, he has a full biography, that sets him within the late Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, as a Sudenten German who later moved to Austria, and as a man plagued ever more by various forms of mental illness as he aged.
One of the funniest quotes is one that stands in stark contrast to the famous Douglas Hofstadter book, “Gödel, Escher, Bach.” That is: “Bach and Wagner make me nervous.”
Not so funny is that, while Hofstadter had plenty of biographical elements about Bach, he had almost none about Escher and none on Gödel. This book remedies that in spaces.
Gödel is best known for his Incompleteness Theorem, but on the math and philosophy side, had more than that, and “informed” discussions of relativity and more in physics.
Gödel had other oddities besides comment about Bach and Wagner. He was a diehard mathematical Platonist, but others exist today. That said, he seems to have been something like a diehard Platonist period.
Related to that? He claimed “religions were bad, but religion good,” as in, questioning individual religions but affirming the value of some deeper religion. Indeed, in 1970, he claimed to have an ontological proof for the existence of God!
His mental health? Long before his suicide by starvation, he was a hypochondriac and probably had OCD.
That said, the paranoia dramatically ramped up in the last half a dozen years of his life, leaving him an incredibly tragic person. His paranoia eventually involved claims about Nazis resurgent in Austria and his own brother, before he eventually starved himself to death, including while in hospital the last couple of weeks of his life.
That’s enough to give a good taste of this book, but without getting too deep into spoiler alert territory. Even clicking open the spoiler alert won't give all away.
That said, there are a couple of errata and issues in the book.
One minor one is that Budiansky claims Wiener schnitzel is really nothing more than cotoletta alla Milanese imported from Italy in the 1850s, allegedly by Radetsky. In 2007, a linguist totally debunked this.
The larger issue is one of omission. Many ideas that many people attribute to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem actually come from Tarski’s Undefinability Theorem. Tarski’s theorem extends beyond mathematics into semantics in general. That said, Budiansky isn’t alone. Realistically, Hofstadter should have written “Tarski, Escher, Bach.” That said, in turn, Gödel did apparently discover this first, but never published, so the technical credit goes to Tarski. It should be noted that Hofstadter references Turing MUCH more than Tarski, and Budiansky does just as much. On the other hand, Budiansky does critique GEB, noting that Hofstadter “far outran Gödel’s proof,” while at the same time it “contained not a word about the man himself.” Budiansky gets this right, but it would have been a good place here to insert at least a small note about Tarski.
Budiansky, besides remedying that, looks at Gödel’s actual reputation today in the worlds of science and philosophy. He says that in math, most modern mathematicians have seen little reason to venture past his barrier and that philosophy (as seemingly, Gödel himself) have found his theorem limiting.
One of the funniest quotes is one that stands in stark contrast to the famous Douglas Hofstadter book, “Gödel, Escher, Bach.” That is: “Bach and Wagner make me nervous.”
Not so funny is that, while Hofstadter had plenty of biographical elements about Bach, he had almost none about Escher and none on Gödel. This book remedies that in spaces.
Gödel is best known for his Incompleteness Theorem, but on the math and philosophy side, had more than that, and “informed” discussions of relativity and more in physics.
Gödel had other oddities besides comment about Bach and Wagner. He was a diehard mathematical Platonist, but others exist today. That said, he seems to have been something like a diehard Platonist period.
Spoiler
He rejected methodological naturalism, or as Budiansky calls is, scientific materialism. Philosophically, he had an ardent love affair with Leibniz, monads and all. And, he was also a Leibnizian conspiracy theorist, claiming that up to his own time, certain concepts and findings of Leibniz were still being repressed, generally by an unidentified “them.”Related to that? He claimed “religions were bad, but religion good,” as in, questioning individual religions but affirming the value of some deeper religion. Indeed, in 1970, he claimed to have an ontological proof for the existence of God!
His mental health? Long before his suicide by starvation, he was a hypochondriac and probably had OCD.
That said, the paranoia dramatically ramped up in the last half a dozen years of his life, leaving him an incredibly tragic person. His paranoia eventually involved claims about Nazis resurgent in Austria and his own brother, before he eventually starved himself to death, including while in hospital the last couple of weeks of his life.
That’s enough to give a good taste of this book, but without getting too deep into spoiler alert territory. Even clicking open the spoiler alert won't give all away.
That said, there are a couple of errata and issues in the book.
One minor one is that Budiansky claims Wiener schnitzel is really nothing more than cotoletta alla Milanese imported from Italy in the 1850s, allegedly by Radetsky. In 2007, a linguist totally debunked this.
The larger issue is one of omission. Many ideas that many people attribute to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem actually come from Tarski’s Undefinability Theorem. Tarski’s theorem extends beyond mathematics into semantics in general. That said, Budiansky isn’t alone. Realistically, Hofstadter should have written “Tarski, Escher, Bach.” That said, in turn, Gödel did apparently discover this first, but never published, so the technical credit goes to Tarski. It should be noted that Hofstadter references Turing MUCH more than Tarski, and Budiansky does just as much. On the other hand, Budiansky does critique GEB, noting that Hofstadter “far outran Gödel’s proof,” while at the same time it “contained not a word about the man himself.” Budiansky gets this right, but it would have been a good place here to insert at least a small note about Tarski.
Budiansky, besides remedying that, looks at Gödel’s actual reputation today in the worlds of science and philosophy. He says that in math, most modern mathematicians have seen little reason to venture past his barrier and that philosophy (as seemingly, Gödel himself) have found his theorem limiting.
veewatson's review
3.0
3.5 stars
I enjoyed parts of this book, however I don't think it was one that had much impact. It was short and that's both positive and negative because biographies can be massive unreadable tomes. At some points, I felt that Budiansky was writing more of the history of Austria-Hungarian empire and Princeton/ The Institute for Higher Learning or the eccentricities of Wittegenstein then Gödel. It was interesting stuff but he spent more time contextualizing Gödel than parts of his life, some which were hurried through. He described Gödel's main work succinctly and made it as approachable as possible for the lay reader. Overall, it wasn't badly written but a tad dry.
Writing: C
Research: B
Accuracy: A
Premise: B
I enjoyed parts of this book, however I don't think it was one that had much impact. It was short and that's both positive and negative because biographies can be massive unreadable tomes. At some points, I felt that Budiansky was writing more of the history of Austria-Hungarian empire and Princeton/ The Institute for Higher Learning or the eccentricities of Wittegenstein then Gödel. It was interesting stuff but he spent more time contextualizing Gödel than parts of his life, some which were hurried through. He described Gödel's main work succinctly and made it as approachable as possible for the lay reader. Overall, it wasn't badly written but a tad dry.
Writing: C
Research: B
Accuracy: A
Premise: B
More...