- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Most Helpful Favorable Review
9 out of 18 people found this review helpful.
great book, and answer about nook vs kindle price
posted by wk_music on January 28, 2011
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Most Helpful Critical Review
3 out of 19 people found this review helpful.
Poor philosophy presented as if science.
Mr. Green's poor thinking is evident from the beginning. In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the preface of the book, he writes: "If there was any doubt at the turn of the twentieth century, by the turn of the twenty-first, it was a foregone conclusion: when it comes to revealing the true nature of reality, common experience is deceptive." What is a reader supposed to make of such a statement? The reader is presumably a human being. Common experience is experienced by human beings. Human beings exist in a world of touch, smell, sight, sound, etc .. Measured details of the atomic or subatomic structure of reality enter the minds of human beings only by way of instruments human senses can experience. Mr Greene appears to be oblivious to the reality that the individual atoms making up keyboard on which he types are as far away from his direct experiential knowledge as is Alpha Centauri.
In chapters 1, 2, and 3 he painstaking (painfully) elaborates on a theory that since there are an allegedly an infinite number of universes but only an allegedly finite number of atomic particles and energy states, there must be an infinite number of parallel universes. In other words, there are an infinite number of Mr. Greens. An infinite number of Mr. Greens wrote the book exactly as Mr. Green did in our universe. An infinite number of Mr Greens wrote the book using an "a" instead of an "an" on some random page of the book. An infinite number of Mr. Greens wrote the book placing figure 3 before figure 2. An infinite number of Mr Greens wrote the book without the first sentence in the first paragraph of the preface to the book. Etc ...
Mr Green seems to believe he knows definitively that infinite number of universes, combined with a finite number of particles and energy states in each universe, requires duplication of the contents of each universe. He makes no mention, for example, of the alleged orientation of the "orbits" of electrons in each atom in the universe. There is no evidence to suggest that orientation of orbits is quantized, and not infinite. Mr. Green simply asserts the lunacy that nothing more is needed than a finite number of particles and energy states to jump to the conclusion that the contents of the universe is duplicated an infinite number of times.
The book is loaded with useful ideas and explanations. However Mr. Greene seems to be focused on pretending that he can prove that science illustrates that what we know is false or worse, meaningless.
I am reminded of Galileo. Galileo ran afoul of authorities not for his science, but for his philosophy. Today, there is no risk Mr. Green will be imprisoned for his philosophy. I just wish Mr. Green would stick to science. Or better, he should learn some philosophy.
posted by An_Observer on May 10, 2011
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.-
great book, and answer about nook vs kindle price
For the love of all that is holy everyone understand this. its not barnes and noble that decides the price of the ebooks, its the publisher!!!! im not kidding. so, complain to the right sources. why the publisher would charge more for the nook is just bad business, i agree, but barnes and noble makes the hardware, not the ebook that it stores. WRITE THE PUBLISHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they are freaking out trying to make a buck because they dont want the market dominated by one source, like the music industry (itunes). so before you piss and moan, actually do what youre complaining about........and read.
9 out of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
An_Observer
Posted May 10, 2011
Poor philosophy presented as if science.
Mr. Greene may or may not be a competent physicist. However, he is a very poor philosopher. His inability, or refusal, to think clearly undermines the potential of his writing. His writing hastens the death or possible suicide of thought. I will mention only a few example glaring errors of thought I found before having to put the book down due to boredom.
Mr. Green's poor thinking is evident from the beginning. In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the preface of the book, he writes: "If there was any doubt at the turn of the twentieth century, by the turn of the twenty-first, it was a foregone conclusion: when it comes to revealing the true nature of reality, common experience is deceptive." What is a reader supposed to make of such a statement? The reader is presumably a human being. Common experience is experienced by human beings. Human beings exist in a world of touch, smell, sight, sound, etc .. Measured details of the atomic or subatomic structure of reality enter the minds of human beings only by way of instruments human senses can experience. Mr Greene appears to be oblivious to the reality that the individual atoms making up keyboard on which he types are as far away from his direct experiential knowledge as is Alpha Centauri.
In chapters 1, 2, and 3 he painstaking (painfully) elaborates on a theory that since there are an allegedly an infinite number of universes but only an allegedly finite number of atomic particles and energy states, there must be an infinite number of parallel universes. In other words, there are an infinite number of Mr. Greens. An infinite number of Mr. Greens wrote the book exactly as Mr. Green did in our universe. An infinite number of Mr Greens wrote the book using an "a" instead of an "an" on some random page of the book. An infinite number of Mr. Greens wrote the book placing figure 3 before figure 2. An infinite number of Mr Greens wrote the book without the first sentence in the first paragraph of the preface to the book. Etc ...
Mr Green seems to believe he knows definitively that infinite number of universes, combined with a finite number of particles and energy states in each universe, requires duplication of the contents of each universe. He makes no mention, for example, of the alleged orientation of the "orbits" of electrons in each atom in the universe. There is no evidence to suggest that orientation of orbits is quantized, and not infinite. Mr. Green simply asserts the lunacy that nothing more is needed than a finite number of particles and energy states to jump to the conclusion that the contents of the universe is duplicated an infinite number of times.
The book is loaded with useful ideas and explanations. However Mr. Greene seems to be focused on pretending that he can prove that science illustrates that what we know is false or worse, meaningless.
I am reminded of Galileo. Galileo ran afoul of authorities not for his science, but for his philosophy. Today, there is no risk Mr. Green will be imprisoned for his philosophy. I just wish Mr. Green would stick to science. Or better, he should learn some philosophy.3 out of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
augvoorde
Posted January 15, 2011
Questions asked
RE: universe9015's review; I have read Michio Kaku's books and Brian Greene's books - positive comments = fascinating; semi-negative or perhaps less than fully positive = reinforces fundamental questions of how did life start? and why are we here? and where did the "world" begin? and . . . despite the questions asked I will purchase and read Greene's newest pub.
3 out of 15 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
Anonymous
Posted March 18, 2013
I liked the book, but it was a little advanced for me. Greene d
I liked the book, but it was a little advanced for me. Greene did a good job of *trying* to explain in a way that can be understood by anyone, but it was still over my head. I'll try it again some other time.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
LolPoop
Posted November 25, 2011
Amazing book, but previous reviews don't seem to understand
I have been reading theoretical physics since i was 10 years old, and believe that I have the authority to say that this book is accurate, and a great read. However, the concepts outlined take a bit of getting used to. It is very abstract, and if you are new to the field, i suggest reading the elegant universe before this one, as it is a great introduction to theoretical physics.
1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
3331535
Posted February 11, 2011
price is lower
the price is 9.99 why are people complaining that its more? must be old reviews
1 out of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
Universe9015
Posted January 13, 2011
The book I have not read
The book that I have not read is the one to READ! We have been exploring our universe as we know it today. We have found out that our universe is expanding and is speeding up in that expansion.
There are definitely different levels, and dimensions of existence. Multi dementions that can be proven scientifically.
In ancient writings, they were given to us as a myth. People are trying to explain the visitation of intelligent life from a place or source which they could not understand.
I will tell you this from personal experience, this is not the only universe. There are an eternity of universes that exist.
This will include, parallel universes. There is a difference between multi universes, and parallel universes.
It is a difference between universes and a different dimension of existence.
As we explore scientifically, spiritually, has soulfully, our place in the scheme of total existence, you will find you must address all of the above.
I did not read the book. I already know what's in it.
Im in this universe. This universe is me. I am this universe.
With the unbreakable connection to this universe, the knowledge of this Universe comes with me and it's in me.
Read this book. You will find yourself understanding "The Hidden Reality"1 out of 38 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
Anonymous
Posted November 29, 2012
Z,
N,s,wo
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
Anonymous
Posted March 12, 2012
In any superuniverse there exist 1000 universes
And there exist many superuniverses, approx. 7 +-0. We have not come close to the edges of our own universe. Oh yes, many other inhabited planets exist in our own universe and the beings of these others have differing brain types. Some older & wiser, some new and beginning. We are not alone! Run fast and take it to the bank. citti 1/0
0 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
Rojo
Posted February 2, 2011
So good I bought it anyway
I complained about price and still do but Nook is so much better than Kindle I caved. After reading sample I just had to have this one. A great companion to 'From Eternity To Here'. I strongly recommend both.
0 out of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
Anonymous
Posted April 22, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted February 9, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted July 8, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted January 14, 2012
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted March 19, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted July 29, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted December 23, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted April 13, 2013
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted March 2, 2012
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted January 5, 2012
No text was provided for this review.