Online Buyer

Complex or complicated

Reviewed: 11-06-24

The speaker makes a great job in transferring the excitement the protagonist must have felt when they invented this science.
Having studied physics at that time I can very well relate to the excitement around fractals, chaos and complex systems.
What I find difficult to follow was this stream of names and the who met whom and when and why.
Complex as the field, with so many connections that a small change in the initial conditions could have had a complete different outcome for the field of complexity

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Captivating, again

Reviewed: 09-22-24

He did it again.
Great story, hard to put it down, waiting for the next episode

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Must read in school (and later)

Reviewed: 09-13-24

Thank you Helen for this important book.

It explains a lot of cognitive dissonances, which appear when dealing, being confronted with the subject from outside academia.

Especially the last two chapters put it all together and highlight the challenge.
Having correct observations about injustices on one side and having close to nonsensical „explanations“ by a „theory“, which immunes itself from any challenges.

Much like the god-did-it arguments from the designers.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Calm and collected voice, many ideas to work with

Reviewed: 03-30-24

I liked it a lot. Tje first time I heard about Diane was in a podcast she was in wuth Sam Harris. The way with which she paraded some of his, st times, suggestive questioning style, was brilliant. Not like a fight, more like a dance or Aikido, not giving a way a position, but to open the space for different view points.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Brilliant

Reviewed: 07-20-23

I came across Sabine through her YouTube channel, and this created a certain expectation.
I was not disappointed, although it occasionally reads as a self-therapy.

She reflects on the different ways theoretical sciences, especially physics, have disconnected themselves from the science paradigm of making measurable predictions about reality.

She elaborates on the saying: “Present a measurement, and a theoretical physicist will throw out a theory that describes it. (Or referring to 500 papers in the example of the double photon “event” at the LHC.)

She considers the attempt to redefine the scientific method the biggest thread.

The story she tells reminds me of the Zen phrase, “Don't mistake the finger pointing to the moon with the moon.”

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

One of the best audiobooks I listened in year

Reviewed: 02-02-23

I listened to many audiobooks in this context and the author has a elegant strategy of weaving different perspectives together in an inner dialog like: “what would this group say or argue about.” inviting the listener to make his or her own thoughts.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Interesting maybe, but full of contradictions

Reviewed: 06-26-22

I though after 5’: what?!
Finally I decided for me: Let’s get challenged.
The author cherry-picks individual topics from QM, which he seems not to comprehend and creates an awful melange of statements without any evidence other than ‚it’s all consciousness‘. It very often reads like „god did it“ and the proof for this is that we not fully understand certain aspects of reality or revise findings based on new discoveries.

I know its a matter of taste: the sound of the author to me is very arrogant, suggesting all who don‘t see it are stupid.

Not sure what the authors idea about logic is, but he twists it to his liking.
An example: as we know only a part of infinite space, we therefore know nothing. If know my room, I know my room. I should be careful extrapolating to other rooms and handle any prediction with care, but to say I know nothing is nonsense.

For me the most important sentence in science (and outside of it, if you like ) for me is: I don‘t know. The author takes this as an argument for his case and some scientists are unable to admit this, but what’s the problem with this? We build models, which more or less accurate describe what we observe. And a good idea is not to mistake the model with what it describes like in the Zen saying: If somebody shows you the moon by pointing with the finger in its direction. Don’t mistake the finger with the moon. Models are just like that.

The book reminds me to an article, which was described in the book „fashionable non-sense“.
Taking credibility from one place and relating to something entirely different in order to enhance its value.

Still thinking whether it was a complete waste of time to read the book, but at least there are some references to interesting more recent experiments didn’t knew.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Fascinating & touching

Reviewed: 02-08-22

I enjoyed this book a lot. It transports a vividness, which I guess, can only be transported if and when the author speaks himself.
Fascinating journey to the basement of human experience, really down to earth without lofty promises.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

The cat made accessible

Reviewed: 01-11-22

One of the most fascinating books of the last years. Having some background in physics and philosophy the book offers many new perspectives on the the never ending question:
What is reality and how are we able to grasp it at all. The relational model for me was the first really accessible way of describing Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment other than collapsing wave functions etc.
Thanks Carlo.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Great journey, but…

Reviewed: 06-28-21

With impressive knowledge Evan Thompson shed’s light on modern Buddhist developments and its relation to neuroscience.

The terrible thing about the audiobook is the unbearable inclusion of footnotes with all the links to web pages haitch-tee-tee-pee colon forward slash - forward slash and on and on
A simple pdf would have done the job without distracting from the flow

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!