What do you think?
Rate this book
The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy
Cosmology is in crisis. The more we discover, the more puzzling the universe appears to be. How and why are the laws of nature what they are? A philosopher and a physicist, world-renowned for their radical ideas in their fields, argue for a revolution. To keep cosmology scientific, we must replace the old view in which the universe is governed by immutable laws by a new one in which laws evolve. Then we can hope to explain them. The revolution that Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin propose relies on three central ideas. There is only one universe at a time. Time is everything in the structure and regularities of nature changes sooner or later. Mathematics, which has trouble with time, is not the oracle of nature and the prophet of science; it is simply a tool with great power and immense limitations. The argument is readily accessible to non-scientists as well as to the physicists and cosmologists whom it challenges.
566 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2014
84 people are currently reading
963 people want to read
About the author
Roberto Mangabeira Unger
59 books103 followersRoberto Mangabeira Unger (born 24 March 1947) is a philosopher and politician. He has written notable works including Politics: A Work In Constructive Social Theory and The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time. He has developed his views and positions across many fields, including social, and political, and economic theory. In legal theory, he is best known for his work in the 1970s-1990s while at Harvard Law School as part of the Critical Legal Studies movement, which is held to have helped disrupt the methodological consensus in American law schools and which led to the writing of What Should Legal Analysis Become? His political activity helped the transition to democracy in Brazil in the aftermath of the military regime, and culminated with his appointment as Brazil's Minister of Strategic Affairs in 2007 and again in 2015. His late work in economics culminates in his characterization and program toward The Knowledge Economy. His work is seen to offer a vision of humanity and a program to empower individuals and change institutions.
At the core of his philosophy is a view of humanity as greater than the contexts in which it is placed. He sees each individual possessed with the capability to rise to a greater life. At the root of his social thought is the conviction that the social world is made and imagined. His work begins from the premise that no natural or necessary social, political, or economic arrangements underlie individual or social activity. Property rights, liberal democracy, wage labor—for Unger, these are all historical artifacts that have no necessary relation to the goals of free and prosperous human activity. For Unger, the market, the state, and human social organization should not be set in predetermined institutional arrangements, but need to be left open to experimentation and revision according to what works for the project of individual and collective empowerment. Doing so, he holds, will enable human liberation.
At the core of his philosophy is a view of humanity as greater than the contexts in which it is placed. He sees each individual possessed with the capability to rise to a greater life. At the root of his social thought is the conviction that the social world is made and imagined. His work begins from the premise that no natural or necessary social, political, or economic arrangements underlie individual or social activity. Property rights, liberal democracy, wage labor—for Unger, these are all historical artifacts that have no necessary relation to the goals of free and prosperous human activity. For Unger, the market, the state, and human social organization should not be set in predetermined institutional arrangements, but need to be left open to experimentation and revision according to what works for the project of individual and collective empowerment. Doing so, he holds, will enable human liberation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 19, 2015
As you can see from my reviews of his last two books, I am a fan of Lee Smolin, so it pains me to say that this one was a major disappointment. It pains me even more to explain why, but having started I suppose I have to continue. The book lists two authors on the cover, Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin, and it has an unusual structure. It starts with a co-written introduction of about 20 pages; then there is a section of about 350 pages, written by Unger; after that, a section of about 150 pages, written by Smolin; and finally a cowritten section of about 20 pages, where the authors list their disagreements.
Given my stated admiration for Smolin, you will already see one obvious reason for my unhappiness, namely that he isn't getting enough screen time. Unfortunately, this is far from being the worst problem. The central themes of the book, as the title suggests, are ambitious. The two authors, who can reasonably claim to be leading experts on philosophy and physics respectively, argue that science has lost its way in confronting the fundamental issues in cosmology. They give reasons to believe that the methods which have worked so well in understanding parts of the universe break down when applied to the universe as a whole, and outline a new way of approaching these ideas. The central notion is what they call "the reality of time". Contrary to what we have been taught since Einstein's introduction of relativity at the beginning of the last century, Unger and Smolin tell us that it does, in fact, make sense to think about an absolute, real time which applies all over the universe and defines a global notion of simultaneity. Accepting this revolutionary proposition opens the door to all kinds of interesting consequences. In particular, it means that one can discuss the possibility that physical laws may themselves be part of the universe and not fixed, that there may have been other universes before this one, and that quantum mechanics could just be an emergent consequence of a deeper theory.
Many people will no doubt think that the above sounds fascinating, and if so I agree with them: it is fascinating, and even if it's wrong it asks so many interesting questions that it's absolutely worth reading. The problem is that most of it appeared in Smolin's last book, Time Reborn, which was published less than two years before The Singular Universe. There is a huge overlap between the two books, and where they differ it is usually not to the later one's advantage. In particular, and I'm afraid I have to be blunt here, I thoroughly disliked Unger's section, which as noted occupies a good two-thirds of the text. Unger is widely reputed to be a very smart guy, so I assume that what he is trying to do stylistically is set up a fugue-like pattern in which various leitmotifs constantly recur in different combinations. But this is a hard act to pull off at the best of times, and he doesn't succeed: it comes across as interminably repetitious and dull, and one often suspects that he lacks a deep understanding of the physical concepts he refers to. Well before the end, I was groaning with frustration and counting the pages until I got to Smolin.
Smolin's section is indeed much better, and he is his usual lucid, provocative self. But again, the greater part seems to be recycled, and it reads as though it had been written very quickly. One of the most obvious indications of this is a staggering piece of carelessness: the references, which, atypically for this kind of book, are given as numbers in square brackets, do not match up with the bibliography, and it can be quite difficult to track things down. This is simply unforgivable in a publisher like Cambridge University Press. Worse, the new material which has been included is often rather weak. What could have been an exciting account of how Smolin and his collaborators have started investigating the notion of mutable physical laws is presented in a form so compressed and cryptic that it more resembles a set of rough notes than proper chapter text, and I was anything but convinced by the attempt to explain how mathematical concepts could be part of the normal, physical universe. Yes, postulating a separate Platonic universe which they inhabit does seem to get into nasty metaphysical territory; but, at least as far as I can see, the converse proposition, that mathematical concepts are time-bound, creates at least as many metaphysical problems, just different ones. Are we supposed to put a temporal operator before a statement like "2+2=4"? And if not, in what sense are the concepts temporal? Unusually for Smolin, it came across as no more than hand-waving. The one part I unreservedly liked was an up-to-date summary of Smolin's "cosmic evolution" scenario, which boldly postulates that black holes create new universes and that the apparent fine-tuning of our own universe is actually optimized for black hole production; there was some nice stuff on possible experimental tests. But it's not enough to justify a 550 page book.
Well, I don't really know what went wrong here, though it's easy to speculate. Bottom line: don't read this, read Time Reborn instead.
Given my stated admiration for Smolin, you will already see one obvious reason for my unhappiness, namely that he isn't getting enough screen time. Unfortunately, this is far from being the worst problem. The central themes of the book, as the title suggests, are ambitious. The two authors, who can reasonably claim to be leading experts on philosophy and physics respectively, argue that science has lost its way in confronting the fundamental issues in cosmology. They give reasons to believe that the methods which have worked so well in understanding parts of the universe break down when applied to the universe as a whole, and outline a new way of approaching these ideas. The central notion is what they call "the reality of time". Contrary to what we have been taught since Einstein's introduction of relativity at the beginning of the last century, Unger and Smolin tell us that it does, in fact, make sense to think about an absolute, real time which applies all over the universe and defines a global notion of simultaneity. Accepting this revolutionary proposition opens the door to all kinds of interesting consequences. In particular, it means that one can discuss the possibility that physical laws may themselves be part of the universe and not fixed, that there may have been other universes before this one, and that quantum mechanics could just be an emergent consequence of a deeper theory.
Many people will no doubt think that the above sounds fascinating, and if so I agree with them: it is fascinating, and even if it's wrong it asks so many interesting questions that it's absolutely worth reading. The problem is that most of it appeared in Smolin's last book, Time Reborn, which was published less than two years before The Singular Universe. There is a huge overlap between the two books, and where they differ it is usually not to the later one's advantage. In particular, and I'm afraid I have to be blunt here, I thoroughly disliked Unger's section, which as noted occupies a good two-thirds of the text. Unger is widely reputed to be a very smart guy, so I assume that what he is trying to do stylistically is set up a fugue-like pattern in which various leitmotifs constantly recur in different combinations. But this is a hard act to pull off at the best of times, and he doesn't succeed: it comes across as interminably repetitious and dull, and one often suspects that he lacks a deep understanding of the physical concepts he refers to. Well before the end, I was groaning with frustration and counting the pages until I got to Smolin.
Smolin's section is indeed much better, and he is his usual lucid, provocative self. But again, the greater part seems to be recycled, and it reads as though it had been written very quickly. One of the most obvious indications of this is a staggering piece of carelessness: the references, which, atypically for this kind of book, are given as numbers in square brackets, do not match up with the bibliography, and it can be quite difficult to track things down. This is simply unforgivable in a publisher like Cambridge University Press. Worse, the new material which has been included is often rather weak. What could have been an exciting account of how Smolin and his collaborators have started investigating the notion of mutable physical laws is presented in a form so compressed and cryptic that it more resembles a set of rough notes than proper chapter text, and I was anything but convinced by the attempt to explain how mathematical concepts could be part of the normal, physical universe. Yes, postulating a separate Platonic universe which they inhabit does seem to get into nasty metaphysical territory; but, at least as far as I can see, the converse proposition, that mathematical concepts are time-bound, creates at least as many metaphysical problems, just different ones. Are we supposed to put a temporal operator before a statement like "2+2=4"? And if not, in what sense are the concepts temporal? Unusually for Smolin, it came across as no more than hand-waving. The one part I unreservedly liked was an up-to-date summary of Smolin's "cosmic evolution" scenario, which boldly postulates that black holes create new universes and that the apparent fine-tuning of our own universe is actually optimized for black hole production; there was some nice stuff on possible experimental tests. But it's not enough to justify a 550 page book.
Well, I don't really know what went wrong here, though it's easy to speculate. Bottom line: don't read this, read Time Reborn instead.
May 28, 2015
Roberto, why don't you come clean and admit what's as plain as day? You ran out of ideas; you tried to solve the problem by repeating yourself ad nauseam with minor stylistic variations; CUP refused to publish the result; Lee came in at the last minute and saved you by writing (more accurately, cutting and pasting) 150 pages in a couple of weeks; it was then accepted with very bad grace; the final product still stinks.
Okay, don't return my calls if you don't want to. But tell me I'm wrong on any of the above.
Okay, don't return my calls if you don't want to. But tell me I'm wrong on any of the above.
December 13, 2016
December 11: Finished, at last. True to expectation, Smolin's contribution was far more concise and compelling than Unger's. The last couple of chapters were heavier on theoretical physics than I was able to follow. But I got the general gist -- as I did that of the book's preceding monograph. A fascinating, sober, rigorous, and persuasively argued gist it is. In the end, I credit both authors for explicating a very deep set of ideas, but only one of them (Smolin) for doing so in a way that remotely met my expectation of what this book would be going in. Smolin's monograph I'd score a 5; Unger's a 2; and the joint effort a 2 in consequence of its having been published as a joint effort at all. I fail to see how Unger's abstract philosophizing profits Smolin's own highly empirically grounded philosophizing. A very curious book. Even so, it levels an important critique of trends in current cosmological thinking.
December 3: Finally bit the bullet and finished Unger's contribution to this volume. My earlier assessment stands. Fully 300+ pages of Unger's musings could easily have been synopsised in 20. The repetition was mind-numbing. Mercifully, the last chapter of Unger's monograph, in which he muses on the relation of mathematics to reality, is quite interesting (though, ironically, it too has quite a lot of repetition). So, at least things wrapped on a high note. At long last, I'm perched to read Smolin's monograph. Much looking forward to diving in starting tomorrow.
.......................................................................
July 15: Note - I'm not really done yet, just updating my progress, but Goodreads doesn't allow lengthy updates. Here's mine...
Author 1 (Unger, philosopher), p. 267: "To develop this idea, I now restate my earlier discussion..." Dear God, no! Never has a discussion been more repeatedly restated than in this sorry excuse for a philosophy of physics (Cambridge U. Press!?). Why physicist/cosmologist Smolin teamed up with philosopher Unger to produce this book (each his own separate book-within-a-book) I have no idea. No doubt, their conversations over the years have been mutually reinforcing, perhaps leading Smolin to surmise that Unger might be capable of writing concisely and compellingly. That gamble did not pay off, alas. Not only has Unger stretched about 20 pages of content across an almost 300 page span -- through Goldbergian variations on the same theme -- he completely casts doubt on the capacity of philosophical thinking to elucidate unresolved questions in science. Not because his ideas aren't interesting (they may, in fact, be correct), but simply because he does nothing more than assert them (ad nauseum; his sole claim -- devoid of any empirical reference -- is to reasonableness). I don't ordinarily weigh in on my reads midstream, but couldn't help doing so this time round. I have another 100 pages of completely empty philosophizing to slog through before I get to Smolin's monograph. Hopefully, that one will rise to the author's typically high standard. His co-author's monomaniacal-ograph, in contrast, isn't worth the paper it's printed on. As an avid consumer of philosophy of science, I couldn't be less impressed with or more disappointed by Unger.
December 3: Finally bit the bullet and finished Unger's contribution to this volume. My earlier assessment stands. Fully 300+ pages of Unger's musings could easily have been synopsised in 20. The repetition was mind-numbing. Mercifully, the last chapter of Unger's monograph, in which he muses on the relation of mathematics to reality, is quite interesting (though, ironically, it too has quite a lot of repetition). So, at least things wrapped on a high note. At long last, I'm perched to read Smolin's monograph. Much looking forward to diving in starting tomorrow.
.......................................................................
July 15: Note - I'm not really done yet, just updating my progress, but Goodreads doesn't allow lengthy updates. Here's mine...
Author 1 (Unger, philosopher), p. 267: "To develop this idea, I now restate my earlier discussion..." Dear God, no! Never has a discussion been more repeatedly restated than in this sorry excuse for a philosophy of physics (Cambridge U. Press!?). Why physicist/cosmologist Smolin teamed up with philosopher Unger to produce this book (each his own separate book-within-a-book) I have no idea. No doubt, their conversations over the years have been mutually reinforcing, perhaps leading Smolin to surmise that Unger might be capable of writing concisely and compellingly. That gamble did not pay off, alas. Not only has Unger stretched about 20 pages of content across an almost 300 page span -- through Goldbergian variations on the same theme -- he completely casts doubt on the capacity of philosophical thinking to elucidate unresolved questions in science. Not because his ideas aren't interesting (they may, in fact, be correct), but simply because he does nothing more than assert them (ad nauseum; his sole claim -- devoid of any empirical reference -- is to reasonableness). I don't ordinarily weigh in on my reads midstream, but couldn't help doing so this time round. I have another 100 pages of completely empty philosophizing to slog through before I get to Smolin's monograph. Hopefully, that one will rise to the author's typically high standard. His co-author's monomaniacal-ograph, in contrast, isn't worth the paper it's printed on. As an avid consumer of philosophy of science, I couldn't be less impressed with or more disappointed by Unger.
December 20, 2014
I am by no means qualified to give a thorough and comprehensive review on the subjects of cosmology and natural philosophy, but I am-as far as a layman can be-an avid reader of popular science and a particular fan of Lee Smolin.
Smolin had already cast doubt on much of the popular science mythology around big documentaries these days regarding multiverses, string theory, etc as unfalsifiable (in the Popperian sense) and more a symptom of hitting a brick wall then of a wide wonderful world of constantly opening vistas. While I had heard the case by dissident scientists for a few years now, Unger's work on natural philosophy on this topic was new to me and I feel like I learned quite a bit.
It is not extremely accessible, but its not a specialist work either. Anyone like myself with a baseline knowledge of these issues but who is hardly an expert can still understand the points made.
Smolin had already cast doubt on much of the popular science mythology around big documentaries these days regarding multiverses, string theory, etc as unfalsifiable (in the Popperian sense) and more a symptom of hitting a brick wall then of a wide wonderful world of constantly opening vistas. While I had heard the case by dissident scientists for a few years now, Unger's work on natural philosophy on this topic was new to me and I feel like I learned quite a bit.
It is not extremely accessible, but its not a specialist work either. Anyone like myself with a baseline knowledge of these issues but who is hardly an expert can still understand the points made.
December 14, 2018
Unger's long beginning section pretty much destroys the main argument Smolin had already attempted to get across in his previous works by suffocating the reader in an endless repetition of an already abstract and poorly developed idea that - to put it simply - the universe is singular and the multiverse interpretation of QED is scientifically unacceptable if not straight-up incorrect. Paraphrasing the same statements over and over again does not make it clearer or easier to understand unless a rigid framework of empirical ideas to build the rest of the theoretical propositions upon is provided beforehand. Over-repetition without proper explanation makes this a dreadful read.
March 27, 2016
So the universe is not a machine. It is not deterministic. There are not God like immutable principles outside of our reality. Cosmology ignores the pre-Bang to cooled-state transition because our physics makes no sense of this initial state and we don’t allow physics principles to change over time.
Mathematics/Physics has lost its way in trying to fudge/fine tune micro physics theories so they agree with our reality’s phenomena. Math is a tool to make sense of the world not an expression of universal time invariant principles. Smolin makes this argument in his section although it is a difficult read.
If you have the patience to look up theories and read through endless unnecessarily complex and repetitive logic arguments, it may somewhat make sense to you. In fact Unger’s logic really does make sense in many examples. However like all logic, much depends on how you frame the question or the set the premise.
The consequences of accepting this new prima facie view do not seem to be earth shaking however it would curtail what is argued to be a lot of math driven silliness. And it might open a new approach to describing the how the world works by allowing a less dogmatic view of the invariance/holiness of the universe/world’s operating principles.
May 28, 2015
Clearly a magnus opus of philosophical and scientific thought. Not only RMU and LS systematize the current dilemmas of the grand unification theories, but they suggest an optimist, realistic and spell-breaking solution. The agenda is quite simple:
1. There is only one universe (it just is and/or is within a succession)
2. Time is real (consequences for the relativity of simultaneity are analyzed)
3. Mathematics has limitations in describing nature
With this under their belt, scientists (that is, physicists) can now take further the standard model and the GUTs (including relativity and quantum mechanics interpretations) to develop a universe-size model. Shape-dynamics is the start of such a new model. Time and hope reborn.
The book deserves several rereads.
1. There is only one universe (it just is and/or is within a succession)
2. Time is real (consequences for the relativity of simultaneity are analyzed)
3. Mathematics has limitations in describing nature
With this under their belt, scientists (that is, physicists) can now take further the standard model and the GUTs (including relativity and quantum mechanics interpretations) to develop a universe-size model. Shape-dynamics is the start of such a new model. Time and hope reborn.
The book deserves several rereads.
Read
May 21, 2023The Singular Universe: Explaining Our Universe with Scientific Metaphysics" is a groundbreaking collaboration between Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin that delves into the fundamental questions of the universe. As a renowned teacher and speaker on scientific and biblical matters, I find this book to be a stimulating and thought-provoking journey into the realms of cosmology and metaphysics.
Unger and Smolin present a bold and ambitious attempt to bridge the gap between science and philosophy, addressing the profound questions that have captivated humanity for centuries. Their interdisciplinary approach offers readers a fascinating blend of scientific theory, metaphysical concepts, and philosophical ponderings.
"The Singular Universe" challenges the prevailing theories in cosmology, questioning the validity of the multiverse hypothesis and proposing an alternative framework that seeks to unify scientific explanation with metaphysical understanding. Unger and Smolin argue for a more holistic approach to understanding the universe, one that takes into account the interconnectedness of physical laws, the role of time, and the significance of human experience.
The authors' writing style is scholarly yet accessible, guiding readers through complex concepts with clarity and precision. They present their arguments in a logical and systematic manner, drawing upon a wide range of scientific theories and philosophical perspectives to build a comprehensive and compelling case for their ideas.
One of the strengths of "The Singular Universe" is its ability to provoke deep reflection and encourage readers to consider the profound implications of their proposed framework. Unger and Smolin invite us to contemplate the nature of reality, the role of consciousness, and our place within the vast cosmic tapestry.
However, readers should be aware that "The Singular Universe" is not a light or casual read. It requires intellectual engagement and a willingness to grapple with complex ideas. Those seeking a straightforward and definitive scientific account of the universe may find the book's metaphysical explorations challenging or even contentious.
“The Singular Universe" is an intellectually stimulating and provocative book that invites readers on a journey of discovery and contemplation. Unger and Smolin's interdisciplinary approach, blending scientific theories with metaphysical musings, challenges established paradigms and encourages a deeper exploration of our place in the universe. While not without its complexities, this book is a valuable resource for those seeking a fresh perspective on cosmology and the mysteries of existence.
Unger and Smolin present a bold and ambitious attempt to bridge the gap between science and philosophy, addressing the profound questions that have captivated humanity for centuries. Their interdisciplinary approach offers readers a fascinating blend of scientific theory, metaphysical concepts, and philosophical ponderings.
"The Singular Universe" challenges the prevailing theories in cosmology, questioning the validity of the multiverse hypothesis and proposing an alternative framework that seeks to unify scientific explanation with metaphysical understanding. Unger and Smolin argue for a more holistic approach to understanding the universe, one that takes into account the interconnectedness of physical laws, the role of time, and the significance of human experience.
The authors' writing style is scholarly yet accessible, guiding readers through complex concepts with clarity and precision. They present their arguments in a logical and systematic manner, drawing upon a wide range of scientific theories and philosophical perspectives to build a comprehensive and compelling case for their ideas.
One of the strengths of "The Singular Universe" is its ability to provoke deep reflection and encourage readers to consider the profound implications of their proposed framework. Unger and Smolin invite us to contemplate the nature of reality, the role of consciousness, and our place within the vast cosmic tapestry.
However, readers should be aware that "The Singular Universe" is not a light or casual read. It requires intellectual engagement and a willingness to grapple with complex ideas. Those seeking a straightforward and definitive scientific account of the universe may find the book's metaphysical explorations challenging or even contentious.
“The Singular Universe" is an intellectually stimulating and provocative book that invites readers on a journey of discovery and contemplation. Unger and Smolin's interdisciplinary approach, blending scientific theories with metaphysical musings, challenges established paradigms and encourages a deeper exploration of our place in the universe. While not without its complexities, this book is a valuable resource for those seeking a fresh perspective on cosmology and the mysteries of existence.
December 16, 2021
Some good ideas in this. I am more in agreement with Smolin for the most part, and his ideas seem to be a bit more specifically related to various aspects of science. Unger's core ideas are good, but they are repeated to a tedious extent in his part of the book. The section at the end clarifying some of the slight distinctions in their views is also a useful guide.
Smolins proposal is for one global time with a direction, to salvage some meaningful content to cosmological theories, and to avoid the cosmological fallacies and the misplaced confusion of mathematical models of reality with realty itself. The ideas involve a shape space interpretation of relativity, which is to some extent controversial involving a rejection of the relativity of simultaneity as applying universally, instead it is seen to be a local emergent thing, as is space itself, and in fact even the notion of locality is ultimately to be seen as an emergent thing.
His view relies on his temporal relationalism and temporal naturalism, and also involve this idea of the principle of precedence, in which laws of nature are not to be seen as set in stone, predetermined, instead, when a new situation is encountered, nature has the option to act in a novel and unpredictable way. It is a bit similar to Rupert Sheldrakes notion of laws of nature as more like habits, and I believe is related to his understanding of Stuart Kauffman's ideas in relation to the adjacent possible.
Also his heavy reliance on, and appeal to some of Leibniz' notions of sufficient reason among others, is a fascinating aspect of Smolin's work, making his views more philosophically literate than many of the more traditional positivist type scientists who have dominated since the time of Einstein. A couple of classic examples who are still stuck in this mould more recently would be Stephen Hawking and perhaps Leonard Susskind. Penrose would be an example of a mathematical platonist, as well as Julian Barbour, to some extent, a perspective Smolin would also criticise as leading to an idealised symmetrical, mathematical structural view of reality, that fails to do justice to our felt reality of the present moment and the inexorable passing of time.
I am sympathetic to these views, and they may well be on to something accurate and true that we can say about reality, but I don't quite share his faith in science at being prepared to accept these kinds of truths, as science is committed to a style of method and an ontology that are antagonistic to some of Smolin's more metaphysical insights.
Smolins proposal is for one global time with a direction, to salvage some meaningful content to cosmological theories, and to avoid the cosmological fallacies and the misplaced confusion of mathematical models of reality with realty itself. The ideas involve a shape space interpretation of relativity, which is to some extent controversial involving a rejection of the relativity of simultaneity as applying universally, instead it is seen to be a local emergent thing, as is space itself, and in fact even the notion of locality is ultimately to be seen as an emergent thing.
His view relies on his temporal relationalism and temporal naturalism, and also involve this idea of the principle of precedence, in which laws of nature are not to be seen as set in stone, predetermined, instead, when a new situation is encountered, nature has the option to act in a novel and unpredictable way. It is a bit similar to Rupert Sheldrakes notion of laws of nature as more like habits, and I believe is related to his understanding of Stuart Kauffman's ideas in relation to the adjacent possible.
Also his heavy reliance on, and appeal to some of Leibniz' notions of sufficient reason among others, is a fascinating aspect of Smolin's work, making his views more philosophically literate than many of the more traditional positivist type scientists who have dominated since the time of Einstein. A couple of classic examples who are still stuck in this mould more recently would be Stephen Hawking and perhaps Leonard Susskind. Penrose would be an example of a mathematical platonist, as well as Julian Barbour, to some extent, a perspective Smolin would also criticise as leading to an idealised symmetrical, mathematical structural view of reality, that fails to do justice to our felt reality of the present moment and the inexorable passing of time.
I am sympathetic to these views, and they may well be on to something accurate and true that we can say about reality, but I don't quite share his faith in science at being prepared to accept these kinds of truths, as science is committed to a style of method and an ontology that are antagonistic to some of Smolin's more metaphysical insights.
November 16, 2020
Disappointing. The first part of the book, written by Unger, is an exercise of circular philosophy that leads to nothing except for some head scratches. In the last part of the book Smolin takes over with a view that is more grounded in physics. But even Smolin’s part includes a lot of hand waving.
June 10, 2018
I read the 2nd half of the book by Lee Smolin. Pretty impressive. Still need to read the first half by Unger.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 25, 2019
Despite endless repetition by Unger, and some rather technical discussion by Smolin, this was very thought-provoking.
Read
February 9, 2021You can skip the Unger part
Read
August 13, 2022N uhh h
January 13, 2016
A very difficult read
The book is divided into two parts. Part I was written by Unger and Part II by Smolin. Both authors say essentially the same thing and employ the same extremely dense prose to express their positions, which I found very hard to follow. They make several good arguments against the spatialization of time, insisting that general relativity could and should be reformulated in a manner that recognizes the reality of time. I think these are good arguments, but I would have preferred that Unger and Smolin present them in a less convoluted manner.
I think their main argument boils down to the fact that the universe has a history -- a point that was reiterated over and over, and neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity in its standard form can accommodate irreversibility. Yet it seems that everything in the universe is evolving toward increasing complexity; thus, the empirical evidence points to a universe where physics is not bidirectional with respect to time.
I would have given this book five stars, if it weren't such a difficult read. Nevertheless, I think it's an important book and would still recommend it.
https://sites.google.com/site/amateur...
The book is divided into two parts. Part I was written by Unger and Part II by Smolin. Both authors say essentially the same thing and employ the same extremely dense prose to express their positions, which I found very hard to follow. They make several good arguments against the spatialization of time, insisting that general relativity could and should be reformulated in a manner that recognizes the reality of time. I think these are good arguments, but I would have preferred that Unger and Smolin present them in a less convoluted manner.
I think their main argument boils down to the fact that the universe has a history -- a point that was reiterated over and over, and neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity in its standard form can accommodate irreversibility. Yet it seems that everything in the universe is evolving toward increasing complexity; thus, the empirical evidence points to a universe where physics is not bidirectional with respect to time.
I would have given this book five stars, if it weren't such a difficult read. Nevertheless, I think it's an important book and would still recommend it.
https://sites.google.com/site/amateur...
August 31, 2016
Interesting contrarian view of cosmology
The Big Bang is close to settled science, but does raise questions. For example, what came before the Big Bang? Why are its design parameters very, very improbable? This has led some renowned scientists to postulate alternative universes, even an infinite number of them. This volume is a counter to such conjectures, hence the "singular" in the title.
The books consists of two sections, one written by a socialist philosopher, the other by a practicing physicist (though a contrarian); the latter I found to be of the most value, though still with some issues.
It was not clear to whom this work was addressed. It seems clear the general public was not part of the intended audience, since the terminology and depth of treatment is well beyond the generalists. However, the lack of mathematical underpinning of the hypothesis would seem to exclude trained physicists from the intended audience.
Still, an interested conjecture and a useful counter to the frankly unsupported (and unsupportable?) multiverse theory.
The Big Bang is close to settled science, but does raise questions. For example, what came before the Big Bang? Why are its design parameters very, very improbable? This has led some renowned scientists to postulate alternative universes, even an infinite number of them. This volume is a counter to such conjectures, hence the "singular" in the title.
The books consists of two sections, one written by a socialist philosopher, the other by a practicing physicist (though a contrarian); the latter I found to be of the most value, though still with some issues.
It was not clear to whom this work was addressed. It seems clear the general public was not part of the intended audience, since the terminology and depth of treatment is well beyond the generalists. However, the lack of mathematical underpinning of the hypothesis would seem to exclude trained physicists from the intended audience.
Still, an interested conjecture and a useful counter to the frankly unsupported (and unsupportable?) multiverse theory.
February 11, 2024
Previous review being rewritten due to new understanding...
Forthcoming...
Forthcoming...
Read
February 26, 2018good read
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews