A Brief History of Time

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:33:08 -0500

Summary

After writing several books targeted at specialists Stephen Hawking tries to write a book targeted at the everyman. In the book he lays out where our conceptions of the universe and time came from, and how and why they’ve been updated as more and more discoveries have been made.

Thoughts

I don’t know if this book was a waste of Hawking’s time, but it was fairly clear after reading the book that the talent for mass communication that other popular science writers have is somewhat lacking here. As one of the most intelligent and acclaimed scientists of our time it is not that surprising that the average layman may have difficulties keeping up. I in part blame Einstein for this because up until his general theory of relativity it seemed to me that the basic ideas of physics could be conveyed in a way that most people could understand, but once you start talking about gravity bending time and space, I think the allegories have to be dumbed down so much that they essentially represent nothing to the non-specialist and are quickly misunderstood by the masses. That being said there were some gems in the book, specifically the anthropic principle which we’ve all thought about many times in one direction. That is, we often have heard or thought “what are the chances that this universe unfolded in such and such a way. It’s impossible for that to have been purely chance”. What this observation neglects are that in order to make the observation in the first place the universe had to have unfolded in such and such a way. Every long string of events looks improbable in retrospect, yet any outcome of a sufficiently long string of events looks improbable. I guess this is similar to the idea that if something odd DOESN’T happen in your day, that would be a truly odd day. Hawking is also of course famous for his work on radiation observed around black holes, and so he goes into how black holes work which didn’t help me to sleep any better at night. In fact, I am now convinced that no one believes in black holes. The fact that the universe spawns these giant mouths that consume everything they come into contact with is something that I will continue to ignore.

Biocentrism

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:33:29 -0500

Finally checked this one of the list, of course that raises the question of what I mean by “finally”. The word obviously indicates a sequence of events and sequence indicates time and time indicates a required conscious observer. So, in a sense I’ve read this book both before, after and not yet. Jokes aside this book raises a lot of interesting questions, making you think about things a little differently than you had before. And that is the most and best that you can ask from a book. The writing in the book is kind of poor and a little self-aggrandizing at points but the ideas are original enough to make that not too difficult to look past. This book also made me want to read Emerson. While some of his conclusions and observations have in recent years been “proven” wrong (most notably the experiment of being able to read someone’s intentions up to 10 seconds before they actually make a decision) there still seems to be plenty of latitude in the field of consciousness to allow for his ideas to have value. Good suggestion has given me a lot to think about.

Time on George's Blog

A Brief History of Time

Biocentrism