I read this when I was about 11 but only just realised, rereading the Paradiso, that Blish's angels must be modelled on Dante's. I think I have to rerI read this when I was about 11 but only just realised, rereading the Paradiso, that Blish's angels must be modelled on Dante's. I think I have to reread The Star Dwellers too. Given similar occurrences in many of his other books, I suspect there were a few Easter eggs (as one might put it) that 11-year-old me didn't notice.
I started leafing through this at the bookshop round the corner, and by the time I'd got to the third page of the introduction I was intrigued. Clive I started leafing through this at the bookshop round the corner, and by the time I'd got to the third page of the introduction I was intrigued. Clive James gave an insightful analysis of the Divine Comedy's poetic structure and explained, better than anyone I'd seen try this before, just how ridiculously difficult it is to produce an English-language translation that has some meaningful relationship to the original text. Everything is difficult, needless to say, but the very worst thing is the rhyme scheme.
A prose translation is flat, and large parts of the second and third books turn into boring theology; in the original, they are sublimely beautiful, and the poem gets more and more beautiful as Dante draws closer to God. Also, Dante's poetry is propulsive, carrying the action forward at a rapid pace. But it turns out, unfortunately, that you can't do terza rima in English, the language just doesn't support that verse form. James thought about it for decades, and in the end had an idea: maybe quatrains would do the job? He experimented and decided the answer was yes. I flipped forward to Canto I and found these gorgeous lines:
At the mid-point of my path through life, I found Myself lost in a wood so dark, the way Ahead was blotted out. The keening sound I still make shows how hard it is to say How harsh and bitter that place felt to me - Merely to think of it renews the fear - So bad that death by only a degree Could possibly be worse. As you shall hear It led to good things too, eventually, But then and there I saw no sign of those, And can't say even now how I had come To be there, stunned and following my nose Away from the straight path.
I was sold: James definitely had something. I paid my $20, took it home, and carried on reading.
I had previously only read the tepid Dorothy Sayers translation, some of the Longfellow, and some passages in the original, but my Italian, alas, is still nowhere near good enough to get through the whole thing that way. This was an acceptable substitute, and James was not overselling himself. The language, indeed, was often beautiful. And it really was propulsive: I often read several canti at a stretch, unable to put it down. By the time I reached the third book, where Dante ascends the spheres of heaven in the company of Beatrice, a third aspect became noticeable: it was wonderfully romantic. The adoration Dante feels for his angelic Lady leaps off the page in a way that I totally didn't recall from Sayers. For example (one passage of very many):
And so I am invited and made bold To ask you of another truth less than Clear to me, lady. Let me now be told If ever it can happen that a man May make it up to you by doing good For vows he has not kept." She looked at me With eyes so full of love my powers could Do nothing to withstand the clarity That sparkled there within. My vision shook. I almost fainted, stunned by that one look.
As I progressed, I become more and more certain that the translator was being inspired by his own muse, and I was also sure I could identify her: in the foreword, James was very gracious about the debt he owed to his wife, Prue Shaw, who introduced him to Dante when he was still a student and eventually become an internationally acclaimed Dante scholar. When James described how Dante is dazzled by the radiance of Beatrice's smile, I thought how he was being led on his own journey by his own celestial guide. It was really quite inspiring.
I mentioned some of my theories to Not, who scornfully told me that, as any Australian knew, Prue Shaw had unceremoniously dumped her husband in 2012 when she found he'd been deceiving her for years with a much younger woman. Maybe James had had a heavenly muse, but it was less than clear who she was. It was quite conceivable that he in fact had had two muses.
Damn. Why can't life ever be as beautiful and simple as you'd like it to be? But however it was produced, I still give an unhesitating thumbs up to James's translation. If you can't read five hundred pages of medieval Italian, this is the next best thing. _________________ [And the next day...]
Over lunch, it occurred to me to wonder whether Leanne Edelsten was in fact Clive James's anti-muse, helping him express that sense of pervasive guilt so central to Dante. Not's explanation was simpler: she thought that James, like most male writers, was a total shit.
I said that my interpretation in no way disagreed with hers, it was just more nuanced. But I am unsure whether Not found this convincing....more
- Yes sir. I had expected that I would be talking to--
- The person to whom you are referring no longer works for our organisation.
- Yes sir. May I ask--
- No, you may not.
- Yes sir.
- Well?
- Ah, yes sir. Ah, I understand very well that my account may seem a little, ah, unusual, but you must take into account that the Czar is still with us and has not been--
- The Czar?
- Yes sir. He hasn't been exploded. At least to the best of my knowledge.
- And why, pray, would the Czar have been "exploded"?
- Ah, I'm sorry sir. I had expected that your, ah, your predecessor would have--
- I have received no communication whatsoever from the person in question. The whole matter is irregular in the extreme, and I am very far from happy with it. Very far indeed, do you understand?
- Yes sir.
- Well, what's this about the Czar?
- There was a plot on his life sir. A gang of anarchists. A desperate gang. I was tasked with infiltrating them.
- And did you succeed?
- Yes sir, I did.
- Well, that's something. And who, may I ask, were these desperate men? Foreigners?
- Not exactly sir.
- Radicals?
- Ah, not that either sir. With one exception, they all turned out to be members of the metropolitan police force.
- You infiltrated an organisation composed entirely of your own colleagues? With one exception?
- Yes sir.
- And who was the dangerous exception, that you and your colleagues so diligently neutralised?
- Ah, I'm not sure, but I think it was God sir.
- God?!
- But He escaped on an elephant.
- An elephant?!!
- We almost caught Him sir. But then He hijacked a balloon.
- A balloon?!!!
- Yes sir. I know it sounds a little far-fetched sir. But as you can see, the Czar is alive and well.
- Mr Syme, have you been drinking?
- No sir. Well, perhaps a bottle or two of Burgundy. And some Saumur.
- Have you done anything else that may have put you in this, shall we say, unusual state?
- I stayed up rather late last night reading poetry sir. The Divine Comedy. By Signor Dante. It's jolly good stuff. Sir.
- Mr Syme, we are both detectives. We examine the forensic evidence. We use logic and we make deductions.
- Yes sir.
- Do you consider it possible - I repeat, possible - that you dreamed all this?
- Ah, in fact sir--
- Yes or no.
- Ah, yes sir. I can't rule out the possibility that the whole thing was a nightmare induced by reading Dante after a few bottles of good wine. But--
In the middle of the journey of my life I came across a man named Trump Who seemed bent on causing much I We attempt to rewrite the Divine Comedy
Canto I
In the middle of the journey of my life I came across a man named Trump Who seemed bent on causing much strife
O! how he was an unpleasant, fleshy lump! Like some hobgoblin of the child's imagination Or a thing that in the night goes bump.
But in spite of lengthy cogitation I find I have produced fewer words Than members of the crowd at an inauguration
I've doubtless disappointed the Dante nerds And before long may well concede defeat My plan, I admit, was strictly for the birds
Alas! Success will not these efforts greet I am totally running out of steam And will soon be mocked by some misspelled tweet
I had despaired. Then last night, in a dream I heard a voice say, "Manny, just have some fun. Go on, I tell you, it'll be a scream."
"Master," I said, "I think I'm not the one." "Fear not," he answered. "All things will be well. Recount the tale of Trump and Kim Jong-Un."
"But first," I asked, "What is the place in Hell Reserved, I hear, for Justin Trudeau's soul And what his punishment? I beg, please tell."
I said I would continue when I had found new inspiration. I considered changing my muse and interviewed several applicants, but Nandakishore's celestial connections turned out to be better than mine:
Canto II
But verily, the Americans did dump This gargantuan mistake of evolution This travesty of humanity called Trump
Down the drain; so, though not a final solution It does prove that your Muses Are not entirely mistaken
In clamming up; the mind refuses To accept the fact that the presidency was taken By a man whose only claim to fame is
Bankrupting every business he has ever lead; In fact, one can say that the "Trump" name is Enough to ensure that the enterprise, as a business, is dead.
And then Théodore also found divine inspiration:
Canto III
Thus my muse is so capricious, She only visits me when I'm not home. I know, it sounds so superstitious
But I have this damn syndrome. There are so Manny reasons to take my life But wouldn't be a sin, being so handsome ?
Oh joy! My original muse, who apparently had been off on an extended trip to the Empyrean, returned with new verses:
Canto IV
Hunky or not, to leave this vale of strife And make my dwelling in the wood of suicides Maybe next to Ted Hughes's ex-wife?
The sweet poetry that she to me confides With these images my heart is riven But my good sense the thought derides
That Sylvia will fall for me is not a given Particularly since she'll be arboreal and dead That's just some crap I read in Larry Niven...more
I was surprised to find that this book presents an almost perfect example of a philosophical problem that's been bothering me recently, to the extent I was surprised to find that this book presents an almost perfect example of a philosophical problem that's been bothering me recently, to the extent that I even wrote a short paper about it. Briefly, and without giving away any spoilers, the core thread in Surface Detail is about the ethics of inflicting pain, or what looks like pain, on simulated beings. The conceit is that many societies in the Iain Banks "Culture" universe have traditions of an afterlife which resembles our idea of Hell. Their advanced technologies have made it possible actually to construct these infernal realms in simulated form, copying the mind states of deceased beings to them so that they will undergo a simulation of eternal punishment.
In the book, Galactic society is sharply divided concerning the morality of the idea. Some societies take the traditional line that "Hell" is needed in order to frighten people into behaving better while they are alive; others think that the notion of eternal punishment is barbaric and inhumane. But it seems to me that these are not the only ways to view the issues. Here's my little paper:
Is "mind crime" a coherent concept?
In his influential book Superintelligence, Nick Bostrom several times refers to a concept he calls "mind crime". By this, he means inflicting the analogues of pain or death on entities which do not exist in the real, physical world, but only in worlds simulated inside computers. For example, Bostrom at one point suggests that a rogue superintelligence could use mind crime as a form of blackmail, creating simulations containing large numbers of simulated intelligent beings and then threatening to "kill" them by closing down the simulation. Later, he wonders whether it may be unethical to run certain kinds of reinforcement learning algorithms, since the nature of reinforcement learning is such that one is in effect inflecting pain on a simulated being. I think it is reasonable to say that these claims, at least at first sight, are extremely counterintuitive, and I will here argue that they may indeed be incoherent when more closely examined.
The point on which I disagree is whether there really can be anything morally wrong with creating a simulated intelligent entity which feels pain, or in terminating a simulation which contains intelligent entities. Now I can of course see the outlines of the argument in favour of these claims: the intuitive picture is that a simulated intelligent entity is in some (functionalist) sense just as "real" as an intelligent entity in the physical world, a simulation is in some sense a box containing the entity, and it's morally wrong to cause the entity to suffer pain or to throw away the box, which amounts to killing it. But does this argument stand up to critical examination?
It seems to me that there is an important point here which is perhaps being obscured. If the simulated entity is causally connected to the physical world by means of sensors and effectors, then I'm completely happy to grant the claims. In this case, the entity is in effect just another physical being which happens to be implemented in silicon rather than in protoplasm, and the same moral principles should apply to it as to organic entities. But I don't think it's so clear if the entity lives in its own self-contained simulated universe. In this case, I think one can reasonably apply another intuitive picture: the simulated universe, including the entity, is just a mathematical object, and running the simulation amounts to no more than applying a method useful for studying that mathematical object.
Now I am aware that this is dangerous philosophical territory, and one can wonder if it's basically recapitulating some version of the Chinese Room argument. But it seems to me that it's not really the Chinese Room in disguise. I'm not questioning whether the entity is in a valid sense conscious, or whether it has valid moral rights. I'm happy to grant all that. I'm just questioning whether the moral rights have any connection to us. If we think of intelligent entity X as part of a mathematical object, then it seems to me that all the moral issues are internal to that object, by virtue of the supposition that the simulated universe is self-contained. If the entity feels (functionalist) pain, and there is some causal reason in the simulated universe which explains why it's feeling pain, then we may legitimately take a moral position, and consider that it was wrong, say, for entity Y in the simulated universe to have caused entity X to feel pain. That much seems quite reasonable.
But we're outside the universe, so in what way can we say there is anything morally wrong with the fact that this mathematical object has certain properties? It has the properties it has: we can't affect them in any way. All we've done is choose to study this mathematical object rather than another mathematical object. Running the simulation doesn't cause it to exist "more"; it just helps us understand the mathematical object's properties more clearly. We can imagine different ways of studying it. Our initial intuitive picture of the simulation is probably that it proceeds, in some sense, a step at a time in a forward temporal direction, which feels like we're in some way helping it to exist. But we might also in principle perform some kind of integration which reduces the simulation to a closed-form solution. (Of course, in practice this would be extremely difficult). If we have a closed-form solution, we can use the simulation to read off the state of the world at a given time, or along some space-like surface, or whatever. We're just studying it, and there is little temptation to say that we are causing it to exist. If we stop reading off states at space-like surfaces, the only effect is on us.
All of these arguments involve concepts which are outside our normal experience; we have never seen an intelligent entity in a self-contained simulated universe, so our intuitions may be confused. As a reference point in a more familiar domain, it seems to me that the status of characters in a novel has useful commonalities. If Marianne in Sense and Sensibility feels pain, we may reasonably blame Willoughby for his heartless behaviour towards her. But it's not reasonable to blame Jane Austen. Willoughby is part of this universe and has both a casual and a moral relationship with Marianne, but Jane Austen has neither. She's outside the universe of the book. We can, if we like, blame her for causing us pain when we read the novel, but we can't seriously blame her for causing Marianne pain.
To conclude, it seems to me that the above arguments cast some doubt over the validity of "mind crime" as a legitimate concept. ...more
"It is dinner time," said Wittgenstein suddenly. "I must eat." Pausing only to put on his hat, he Can I play too?
Tractatus Logico-Forensico (extract)
"It is dinner time," said Wittgenstein suddenly. "I must eat." Pausing only to put on his hat, he opened the door and began to descend the old spiral staircase like a champion skier negotiating a steep slope. I followed as best I could, and caught him up when we were halfway across Whewell's Court. I remembered that it was named after William Whewell, another philosopher and a former Master of the College, who among many other distinctions was often credited with inventing the word 'scientist'. We passed the Porter's Lodge, took a sharp right, and a minute later were in the Whim restaurant, a modest establishment diagonally opposite Trinity College's imposing Great Gate. Wittgenstein was evidently a regular; a waiter greeted him, and showed us to one of the tables.
"My usual order," said the philosopher curtly. The waiter nodded, and turned to me. I was about to order a steak, but remembered just in time that Wittgenstein was a vegetarian.
"I will have the same," I stammered. The waiter gave me an inquiring look, shrugged, and made a notation on his pad. He left without another word.
"I hope--" I began, and broke off. What did I in fact hope? Wittgenstein gave me a direct look. His eyes burned with an unparalleled ferocity, like those of a wild animal.
"I received your letter," he said.
"Good!" I replied, relieved. "Good! Then -- then may I ask what you think of the case?"
Wittgenstein considered carefully, his eyes still fixed on me. "The case consists of everything that is the case," he said at last. I waited, but he did not continue.
"Did you -- did you know the victim?" I asked after a while. Wittgenstein considered again.
"One may ask," he said at last, "what it means to 'know' another individual. I was able to use various expressions in order to refer to this person. I have for example at various times uttered the words 'her over there' or 'Bertie's old flame' or 'that appalling woman who had the presumption to come to my seminar'. In different contexts, all of these were correctly understood. But does it follow that I 'knew' her?"
I could not think how to answer his question. At that moment, the waiter returned, holding two steaming plates; with a flourish, he placed one in front of me, and one in front of the philosopher. I saw to my stupefaction that each plate contained five Brussels sprouts and nothing else. Wittgenstein began to eat his food, neatly dividing each sprout into equal quarters and consuming them in turn.
"Do you have any picture of what could have happened?" I asked when he had finished the second sprout.
"We make pictures to ourselves of the world," replied Wittgenstein after another lengthy pause. He began to cut up the third sprout....more
It's been an odd reading year; I didn't quite realise what was happening at the time, but now that I look back on it I see it's all been dominated by It's been an odd reading year; I didn't quite realise what was happening at the time, but now that I look back on it I see it's all been dominated by Plato and Dante. I started off with four of Iris Murdoch's philosophy books. The one I enjoyed most was The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato Banished the Artists; Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals is rather difficult, but definitely worth the trouble if you like that kind of stuff. Between April and June, I reread Jan Kjærstad's Dante-inspired "Jonas Wergeland" trilogy (Forføreren, Erobreren and Oppdageren). In the summer, and more or less by accident, I got hold of Carlo Rovelli's books on quantum gravity (Reality Is Not What It Seems is the popular one; Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity is the technical one), and to my surprise discovered that they also contained many references both to Plato and to Dante. Somewhere in December, I came across Seymour Chwast's rather horrible Dante's Divine Comedy: A Graphic Adaptation. I guess I felt I wanted to join the party, and have just published my own book, The New Adventures of Socrates, which duly references Dante in a couple of places.
As you see, the really good ideas have all been taken long ago, and there's nothing left for us but to write footnotes; luckily, many of the footnotes are still well worth reading. Some terrific books I found were Elena Ferrante's L'amie prodigieuse (I am impatiently waiting for the fourth volume to come out); Olof Lagercrantz's Om konsten att läsa och skriva; Simone de Beauvoir's paranormal romance, Tous les hommes sont mortels; Ibsen's Peer Gynt, which I'd somehow never got round to despite seeing innumerable references; Paul Feyerabend's Killing Time (I think this might now be my favorite autobiography); and Allan McRobie's brilliantly unclassifiable The Seduction of Curves. Finally, I have to mention Da Jesus Book. You may not think you want to read the Bible in Hawaiian Pidgin, but trust me, you do....more
FIND YOUR IDEAL VERSION OF DANTE IN TEN EASY STEPS ABSOLUTELY FREE!
1. Can you read 14th century Italian?
YES → Original text NO → 2
2. Are you T.S. EliotFIND YOUR IDEAL VERSION OF DANTE IN TEN EASY STEPS ABSOLUTELY FREE!
1. Can you read 14th century Italian?
YES → Original text NO → 2
2. Are you T.S. Eliot?
YES → Original text NO → 3
3. Can you read a Scandinavian language?
YES → 4 NO → 6
4. Are you looking for something that's beautiful, mystical and philosophically engaging, but is also 1500 pages long, contains a lot of weird sex, and needs to be read three times before you actually understand what it's about?
YES → Jan Kjærstad's "Jonas Wergeland" trilogy NO → 5
5. Do you prefer Swedish or Norwegian?
Swedish → Carina Burman's Den tionde sånggudinnan Norwegian → Karl Ove Knausgård's Min kamp 5
6. Are you a Lord Peter Wimsey fan?
YES → Dorothy Sayers translation NO → 7
7. Can you only read science-fiction?
YES → Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Inferno NO → 8
8. Can you read at all?
YES → 10 NO → 9
9. Do you prefer classical engravings, posters or neither?
Engravings → Gustave Doré version Posters → Seymour Chwast version Neither → 10
10. Boy, are you picky. But carry on looking, you're bound to find it in the end....more
Last week, I read Carlo Rovelli's Reality Is Not What It Seems, a book which does a great job of explaining loop qua[Original review, Aug 17 2017]
Last week, I read Carlo Rovelli's Reality Is Not What It Seems, a book which does a great job of explaining loop quantum gravity to the layperson. According to more and more physicists, LQG is the theory that does what string theory was supposed to do, and provides us with a "theory of everything": a coherent description of the fundamental structure of the universe which combines the two main physical theories of the twentieth century, quantum mechanics and gravity. Reality Is Not What It Seems is strong on philosophical and poetic intuitions, but weak on detail; given that it's a popular account, that's entirely as it should be. All the same, I wanted to know more, and soon found my way to this slightly earlier book, which Rovelli co-authored with Francesca Vidotto. I've now finished it.
I must say that I have rarely found it so difficult to write a review. Unless you are very knowledgeable about quantum mechanics and relativity (I would say, approaching PhD level), I'm warning you at once that you're going to find much of the text difficult or impossible to understand. The greater part of it is complex mathematical formulas. That said, and despite the fact that I had to skip or skim a great deal, I was astonished to find that the book was not merely engaging but, it's not too strong a word, compulsive. I finished it in four days and could hardly put it down; on one occasion, I went to bed at midnight, then got up again at 2 am because I had to read another chapter. I am not sure I have done this for any remotely similar book.
Why? I'm struggling to explain. The overwhelming impression is one of architecture, a precise, meticulously constructed architecture that you feel the authors revealing to you, even though you don't properly understand what it is. Oddly enough, the book it most reminded me of was Jan Kjærstad's "Jonas Wergeland" trilogy, where I had the same sensation: there is a plan that holds all this together, though I can't quite identify it. I am sure it is not a coincidence that both Rovelli and Kjærstad are fervent admirers of Dante. I had this Dantean feeling of architectural revelation throughout "Jonas Wergeland", but I felt it even more strongly here. Everything fits. There is a long and scarily incomprehensible piece of mathematics, but the whole time the authors are accompanying you, Virgil-like*, and telling you where you're going; we got this result from here, we're going to need that notion a bit later on, you see now why we did the third thing the way we did. You don't completely grasp it. All the same, you find you have to continue.
They say at the beginning that they aren't going to give you the history of the subject, but they show you in rough outline the route they and their colleagues had to take: where the basic intuitions came from, what encouraged them to continue, bits of mathematics that magically came out right and pointed the way towards a hidden pass, the very hard work they had to do to get round a steep overhang. I find myself wanting to use metaphors from mountain-climbing. Well, that's thematic: they seem to have spent many years climbing Mount Purgatory. Now they have reached the Earthly Paradise, where they have been given a first consistent form of the theory, and they are heading off into the stars. The last chapters of the book are about astronomy and cosmology, but they are only tentative compared to the early ones. Some promising initial results on black holes, some glimpses of what may have happened very early on in the history of the Big Bang. They haven't yet reached the Empyrean, and they encourage other, younger pilgrims to join them on their quest. They are more humble than triumphant, because they know the job is not finished yet.
Of course, it could all be an illusion; it wouldn't be the first time that had happened. But I'd say there's an appreciable chance that this is the real deal. If you want to watch a scientific revolution happening in front of you in real time, I don't know of any better place to sit. __________________
* I suppose I should actually say "Virgil- and Beatrice-like", but that sounded too clunky, and also they never guide Dante at the same time. If you want to know what the authors look like:
Here's an intriguing passage from Wolfram's Adventures of a Computational Explorer (p. 100 in the paperback edition). He is talking about creating simulated universes with different fundamental laws of physics and examining their properties:
A particular representation that I have studied involves setting up a large number of nodes, connected in a network, and repeatedly updating according to some local rewrite rule. Within this representation, one can in effect just start enumerating possible universes, specifying initial conditions and updating rules. Some candidate universes are very obviously not our physical universe. They have no notion of time, or no communication between different parts, or an infinite number of dimensions of space, or some other obviously fatal pathology.
But it turns out that there are large classes of candidate universes that already show remarkably suggestive features. For example, any universe that has a notion of time with certain robustness properties turns out in an appropriate limit to exhibit Special Relativity. And even more significantly, any universe that exhibits a certain conservation of finite dimensionality - as well as generating a certain level of microscopic randomness - will lead on a large scale to spacetime that follows Einstein's equations for General Relativity.
Well... the spin networks that Rovelli and Vidotta focus on in their book are, if I'm understanding Wolfram correctly, an example of the kind of thing he's referring to. And spin networks do indeed imply General Relativity - though the way R&V tell it, that was an extremely nontrivial discovery which took decades to establish. But Wolfram says it's a special case of a much more general result. If so, quite amazing. I just checked, and R&V do not mention Wolfram at all; so far, Wolfram has not mentioned LQG. _____________________________ [Update, Sep 29 2019]
After looking around a bit more, I find this 2017 interview, where Wolfram talks briefly about the relationship between his work and LQG. He gives a link to what he calls
A big result I found nearly 20 years ago (that still hasn’t been widely understood) is that when you look at a large enough network of the kind I studied you can show that its averaged behavior follows Einstein’s equations for gravity. In other words, without putting any fancy physics into the underlying model, it ends up automatically emerging. I think it’s pretty exciting.
The link doesn't work properly any more, but it certainly looks like it's meant to go to section 15 of chapter 9 of his 2002 book A New Kind of Science. This, however, only gives further vague hints. _____________________________ [Update, Jul 2 2020]
1. Divide the Dante into equal halves and fasten together with a good transdimensional adhesive to form a 3-spherEnlightenment à la Rovelli (serves 2)
1. Divide the Dante into equal halves and fasten together with a good transdimensional adhesive to form a 3-sphere. Be careful not to get any glue in the primum mobile. Set aside to dry.
2. Stir the Lucretius, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg until thoroughly mixed. Add a little Anaximander to taste. Put in a warm place until it has risen.
3. Add the Feynman path integral and the lattice approximation to the spacetime. Whisk into a spin-foam using a quantised volume operator. Make sure the fields are covariant.
4. Pour the historical influences and the ἄπειρον into Canto XXXIII of the Paradiso. Squint at the mathematical footnotes so that you intuitively grasp the significance of the formulas without actually reading them. You may not get this right first time, but it is definitely worth the trouble. Wait for the enlightenment to take effect. _________________________
My girlfriend and I ordered this recently at the CERN cafeteria. I thought it was delicious, but in the interests of full disclosure I am forced to admit that my girlfriend was very disappointed. She said it tasted of penguin and she was sure the spoon used to serve it had previously been used for the Joël Dicker. I had no idea what she was talking about and ate her portion too.
Goodreads friends who know about physics told me that this book really does provide a comprehensible explanation of loop quantum gravity. I was a littGoodreads friends who know about physics told me that this book really does provide a comprehensible explanation of loop quantum gravity. I was a little sceptical, having already seen a couple of unsuccessful attempts, but now that I've read it I'm convinced. It does what it says on the box.
If loop quantum gravity (LQG) hasn't been on your radar, let me give you some background and explain why this is a big deal. Physics has for the last century rested on two basic theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity. Each of these is very successful at what it sets out to do (roughly, quantum mechanics explains atoms and relativity explains galaxies), but, embarrassingly, the two theories are incompatible. This hardly ever matters, which is why physicists have been able to get away with it. But when you're dealing with extreme situations - black holes, and the beginning of the universe - it matters a great deal. As you probably gathered if you watched Interstellar, physicists don't really understand what goes on inside black holes. They are even less certain about what happened right at the beginning of the universe.
The current situation is, to say the least, unsatisfactory, and physicists have been trying to find a way to stick the two theories together for nearly a century: that's what "quantum gravity" is. The leading contender over the last few decades has been string theory, which has achieved a high enough profile that almost everyone at least recognises the name. For a good while, string theorists tried to make out that they were the only approach worth mentioning. When Lee Smolin wrote Three Roads to Quantum Gravity at the end of the last century and gave equal billing to the alternative approach of LQG, there was angry muttering from some string theorists that he was being unrealistically partial to his pet idea.
Since then, however, LQG has made steady progress while string theory has run into problems. Most worryingly for the string theorists, none of the supersymmetric particles essential to the theory have been found by the LHC, our friendly local particle accelerator. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there; maybe they don't quite have the predicted properties and are harder to find than expected. But the old Feynman crack about string theorists making excuses rather than predictions is starting to sound unpleasantly apposite. Now LQG has taken another step forward in making itself respectable. This book does a great job of describing the ideas in simple, straightforward language and explaining their appeal. Non-experts - including, one assumes, some who control funding - will soon think that there's a real choice available. If I were a string theorist, I'd be feeling that someone had better start writing a reply.
I won't try and explain here how LQG works. As noted, the book does that very well, and is also fun to read. If you know a little quantum mechanics, my guess is that you'll find it surprisingly simple and intuitive: basically, it's just the way you'd expect to be able to combine quantum mechanics and gravity. I'm sure that there's a huge amount of complexity not visible under the surface, and if I'm suspicious it's because it seems just a bit too good to be true. But deep learning, a subject I know more about, was like this. The idea is super-simple, but it took ages to fix some annoying technical problems that held up progress; once they were solved, the whole field took off. It sounds like LQG could be headed in the same good direction.
Okay, I can't deny it: I'm interested. Where do I find a level 2 treatment with a few more equations, so I can look under the hood and kick the tires? I'm seriously thinking of buying. _________________________
(I also have a frivolous review here). _________________________
Probably just a lucky hit? It's getting harder and harder to tell with these new deep learning architectures. Though if a human being had done [image]
Probably just a lucky hit? It's getting harder and harder to tell with these new deep learning architectures. Though if a human being had done that, I'd have said it was quite insightful. _______________________
[After reading]
- Professor Weinberg, thank you for agreeing to testify in front of the committee.
- The pleasure is all mine, Senator.
- Very good. Now, let's get down to business. Why should the US pay 8 billion dollars to build this - ah -
- Superconducting Super Collider.
- Thank you. You know, you could have chosen a shorter name. So, we're hoping you'll tell us what it's good for.
- Senator, that's not a straightforward question to answer. In fact, as I think you know, I've almost finished writing a book about it. I mailed you a manuscript -
- Professor, that was very kind of you, but I'm afraid we haven't all had time to read three hundred and fifty pages. Interesting as they are. I'm going to have to ask you to summarise.
- Well -
- First of all, what do you expect to achieve here? Is this going to help the US consumer electronics industry?
- It's very unlikely, Senator. At least in the short-term.
- Defense?
- Even more unlikely.
- So what it is it good for?
- Senator, we are trying to discover the fundamental laws of the universe. It's impossible at this stage to say what they might be useful for.
- Fundamental in what sense?
- They are at the basis of everything, Senator. That's how science works these days. Since people discovered DNA, we know that biology is in principle just chemistry. And we've known for a while that chemistry is in principle just physics. And all other physics rests on the basic laws which we will be investigating.
- So if you succeed, then chemists and biologists will be out of a job?
- Absolutely not, Senator. When I say "in principle", I mean just that. We will have the theoretical possibility of explaining everything. But in practise, we won't be able to do it except in very simple cases. The equations are far too hard to solve.
- In other words, it won't actually be useful?
- I didn't say that either, Senator. We just don't know yet.
- Now what gives you the idea that you'll even be able to do this?
- Senator, we theoretical physicists are definitely getting closer. We have all these scientific theories, and, as I said, one theory explains another. We draw arrows to show that this explains that, and we see that the arrows are all coming from one place. It looks like they'll meet up somewhere just off the edge of the picture.
- And what will you find there? God?
- Personally, Senator, I don't think so. The arrows seem to be coming from a different direction.
- That's a pity.
- I'm sorry, Senator.
- Well, Professor Weinberg, if not God, then what? Some deep philosophical idea?
- I don't think that's the answer either, Senator. In fact, we've been quite surprised to see how little help we've got from the philosophers. None at all, to be honest.
- Professor, if you're looking for ultimate answers, and you aren't guided by God or by philosophy, then what are you guided by?
- Ah... by our sense of beauty, if you want to know. Mostly.
- Your sense of beauty? Physics is beautiful?
- Yes Senator. If you're that way inclined.
- And what kind of beauty is it? Like a picture? Like a play by Shakespeare?
- More like a Shakespearian sonnet, actually. The plays are messy, like everyday life. But the sonnets are pure, with nothing wasted. You couldn't add or remove a word. That's how a physical theory is. Or if you want to think of plays, the laws we're searching for are like Greek tragedies. They can only come out one way, they're inevitable.
- You say all this in your book?
- Yes Senator, I explain it at greater length there.
- Well Professor, let me summarise. You think the US government should spend eight billion dollars to find something which you say is like a Greek tragedy.
- Like a Greek tragedy in a certain rather specific sense, Senator.
- Thank you Professor. You've been very helpful....more
I have always wanted to meet a muse, that fabled creature of legend. Probably influenced by the 1999 movie, which I once watched on a plane and remembI have always wanted to meet a muse, that fabled creature of legend. Probably influenced by the 1999 movie, which I once watched on a plane and remember very little about, I expected her to be a sultry blonde vaguely resembling Sharon Stone, full of irrational whims and caprices but capable of inspiring the most remarkable leaps of creativity.
Well, I should have known better. I have finally come across a real-life muse. Rowie is admittedy blonde, and she's not too bad on the whims and caprices, but she's five years old and has an inordinate fascination with princess books. Having, as far as I can tell, exhausted the genre, she is using her powers to get the people around her to write more of them. This book was created by her grandfather, with some help from her grandmother and a friendly illustrator (the powerful muse spell can evidently work even at one remove). It is quite the best book about princesses and cat vomiting I have ever seen. I am sure it's only a matter of weeks before a major publisher launches it towards the public it deserves.
What's next? Beatrice was nine when she met Dante and set him on the path which ended with The Divine Comedy, so Rowie has plenty of time to get warmed up. I'll be following her career with great interest. ...more
First, an apology for only giving it three stars. I am well aware that this is a brilliant piece of poetry, but my Latin is very poor, and I rapidly aFirst, an apology for only giving it three stars. I am well aware that this is a brilliant piece of poetry, but my Latin is very poor, and I rapidly abandoned my initial plan of reading it in the original with the English translation alongside. In a way, though, I'm following Lucretius's advice: he explicitly says at one point that it's wrong to allow yourself to be swayed by beautiful words, and you should judge an idea on its merits. Reading him in my barbarian's tongue is certainly one way to do that.
I have often debated the question of whether it is right to call atheism a religion, and with Lucretius it seems natural to argue that it is. The poem reminded me rather strongly of Dante - when I got to the bibliography, I was interested to see that Santayana had written a book comparing Lucretius, Dante and Goethe - but while Dante loves the One, Lucretius goes a step further and praises the Zero. His noble goal is to convince you that divine intervention is never required in order to explain what happens in the world, and that, if we just stop and and think carefully enough, we can liberate ourselves from irrational terror of the supernatural. Given that he's writing in the first century BC and science barely exists yet, this is ambitious indeed. But Lucretius has faith in his project; it's hard to avoid using the word.
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)...more
Celebrity Death Match Special: The Mind of God versus Le Petit Prince
The next asteroid the Little Prince came to was inhabited by a Pop Scientist. He Celebrity Death Match Special: The Mind of God versus Le Petit Prince
The next asteroid the Little Prince came to was inhabited by a Pop Scientist. He was just putting the finishing touches to a large book.
"Good morning!" said the Little Prince. "I see you have written a book. Maybe you could tell me what it is about?"
"It is called The Mind of God," said the Pop Scientist. "It is about how wonderful the world is, and what we can learn from that about the Person who may or may not have made it."
"I enjoyed Signor Dante's book very much," said the little Prince. "Is yours similar?"
"Not really," said the Pop Scientist.
"Then what is it like?" asked the Little Prince.
"Well," said the Pop Scientist. "I consider the fine tuning of the physical constants and the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics as an explanatory mechanism. That surely tells us something important. Though one must also consider the consequences of Gödel's Theorem. And I often use Conway's Game of Life as an illustrative example."
"I said something like that to God the last time I met Him," said the Little Prince.
"Really?" said the Pop Scientist. "And what did God reply?"
"He just laughed," said the Little Prince. "And then I woke up."
"I do not think you understand anything about these matters!" said the Pop Scientist angrily.
"You are quite right," said the Little Prince. "But all the same, I believe I understand them about as well as you do. Now I must be going."
Another one! he said to himself as he saw the asteroid getting smaller behind him. Yes, grown-ups are very, very, very strange. ...more
This gigantic book - 1350 pages! - reminds me in an odd way of Roger Penrose's almost equally massive The Road to Reality, which I read last year. In This gigantic book - 1350 pages! - reminds me in an odd way of Roger Penrose's almost equally massive The Road to Reality, which I read last year. In both cases, we have an unusually gifted person, who sets out to present an integrated overview of an entire field. For Penrose, it's modern physics; for Quigley, it's world history during the period from 1895 to 1960. In both cases, we soon discover that the author has a highly non-standard but strangely persuasive view of their respective subject, which involves juxtaposition of elements normally considered in isolation.
Penrose spends much of his book setting the scene for his unorthodox ideas about the connections between General Relativity, quantum theory, thermodynamics and the origins of the universe; right or wrong, there are many points in the argument where it is impossible not to wonder why other authors so resolutely refuse to put things together and ask certain questions. What is the actual relationship between the evolution of the quantum mechanical wavefunction and its apparent collapse when an observation is made? Does gravity have anything to do it? Why was the universe created in an extremely low-entropy state? Is there any real reason to think that there could be more dimensions than the four we can see? Even if Penrose is completely out to lunch (a distinct possibility), he is reminding us that these issues are far more interesting and fundamental than the theory-tweaking that most physicists spend their time on. If you don't think big, you're never going to win big.
And similarly with Quigley, who resolutely refuses to let himself be limited by a single perspective or narrow conceptions of political correctness. His account of recent history combines at least five main strands: macro-economic theory, power relationships, weapons technology, psychology and religion. It is quite startling to see how much he knows about all of them. He moves smoothly from explaining how deflationary policies caused the post-World War I German depression, to describing the way investment in arms manufacturing can redistribute wealth and kick-start an economy, to a discussion of Douhet's 1922 theory of strategic bombing and how it influenced Britain's policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany, to an account of the development of radar and how it assured the Allied victory in the Battle of Britain. The level of detail is breathtaking; there's a reason why the book is so long, and indeed you often feel that he's reluctantly cutting a lot out to save space.
Behind it all, he has an overarching vision of how all historical events are influenced by deep philosophical, religious and cultural perspectives going back to the beginnings of recorded history. This stuff is amazingly bold. For example, he sees the basic division between the American Left and Right as ultimately emanating from counter-currents in Christian thought. The Left is following standard Christian doctrine (man is essentially good, and only needs help and guidance), while the Right follows the Manichaean doctrine imported into Christianity by Saint Augustine (evil is a positive force, and man needs strong external discipline to protect him from it). I am sure that not everyone will like this, but I thought it was perceptive. An even more controversial aspect of the book, which I can see nearly everyone hates, is his analysis of national character. For example, he claims that there is a unifying pattern of behavior connecting the Arab and Latin American countries, with Moorish Spain as the link; this is typified by a tribal government based on interpersonal relations rather than laws, endemic corruption, and contempt for women. Yes, too simplistic, as he admits himself; but is it really worse than the currently fashionable alternative, which is to pretend that people are the same everywhere and there are no truly important cultural differences?
I have to say something about conspiracy theories: thanks to a short section around p. 950, Tragedy and Hope has become a kind of bible for conspiracy theorists world-wide, who in many cases appear not to have read any other part of the book. Quigley identifies an influential English clique centered on Oxford University, the "Round Table Group", who, he says, played a major role in shaping British policy during this period, often operating behind the scenes. They were closely connected to some of the American East Coast financial establishment, in particular to J.P. Morgan and his powerful associates, and at some points were able to exert great influence on the US government as well. Quigley in no way tries to sensationalize the idea, or portray these people as unscrupulous or evil. On the contrary, his admiration for them is obvious: he feels that they did a great deal to try to make the world a better place, even if their plans did not always lead to the results they intended.
And yet... it is so easy to see why conspiracy theorists love the book. There is a constant feeling that there is more, which he cannot reveal. He talks at length about the brilliant scientists who worked on the Allied side during World War II and the Cold War, much of whose work is still not at all well-known, but who made a huge contribution to saving Western Civilization from the twin evils of Nazism and Stalinism. He is particularly indignant about the treatment Oppenheimer received at the hands of McCarthy and his stooges. And I think the conspiracy theorists are mistaken when they try to use Quigley to demonstrate the continued importance of the Round Table Group and its claimed successors. He writes of them with love and nostalgia, of the Great Ones who have now departed.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, I would expand this idea further, and note that Tolkien was also a professor at Oxford University around this time. I have checked, and at least one member of the Inklings had a connection to the Round Table Group. I would argue that The Lord of the Rings, despite Tolkien's protestations to the contrary, tells the story of our times in a disguised form; how the Valar sent their emissaries to guide us in our fight against the great evil of Sauron, and how, when he had been defeated, they returned into the Ultimate West, leaving us bereft of their wisdom and power. But that is just a fantasy....more
In response to innumerable queries from MJ and other people, this cheap, tacky PDF edition is now available to people who want to post sarcastic revieIn response to innumerable queries from MJ and other people, this cheap, tacky PDF edition is now available to people who want to post sarcastic reviews without substantially affecting their bank balance.
"...would make a great present for somebody who's never heard of GoodReads before, like maybe a caveman Praise for What Pooh Might Have Said To Dante:
"...would make a great present for somebody who's never heard of GoodReads before, like maybe a caveman recently unfrozen from an ancient glacier" - BirdBrian
"Having observed both Counsel extremely closely, I am compelled to find that the market value of Mr Rayner's efforts is precisely Nil" - Ian G
"... something rather amateurish that looked like it had been done in somebody's back room" - notgettingenough
"Manny doesn't like Harry Potter and sometimes I get mad at him and threaten to throw him into the ocean" - Mariel
"I bought this as a gift for my mum and there was rather more sex in it than I had expected." - Hamish
"... a waste of time... you can read all that stuff for free online" - Paul B
"The future is an endless oneupmanship to see who can write the wittiest, most popular 200-word capsule review on fuck-all. This is Manny’s fault." - MJ
"... call it Rue Vomitorium" - David C
"... good if you read it in the original failboatese" - Vote Whore
"... almost... funny" - Traveller
"... just ... some ... book" - Michael P
"Will you enjoy this? In a word, no, unless you are a masochist" - Sean D
"Never in my life I seen a more desperate attempt to get votes" - Alfonso
"... advertising..." - Esteban
"If I'd been drinking I think it could have made me seasick" - Tabitha
"The thing about Manny... he almost never throws feces at random strangers." - Kat
"... explicit ... the author has failed ..." - Scribble
"... rattling a virtual tip jar at every opportunity ..." - Jason P
"Manny, you sure are fascinated with Stephenie Meyer" - Rowena M
"GoodReads in-jokes ... off-putting ..." - Cecily
"... book snob ... insecurity ... stupid ..." - midnightfaerie
"... sexist garbage ... if you ask me, he is off his onion ..." - Nandakishore
"... ridiculous ... dilettante ..." - Rlotz
"... a pain in the testicles ..." - Faek
"... pompous ..." - Heep
"... silly ..." - Stian
"... enough..." - Alan B __________________________________
Over the last couple of years, several kind people have asked whether I'd considered publishing a collection of my best reviews. I always replied that I appreciated the suggestion, but it didn't seem like a sensible thing to do. But, a few weeks ago, I started wondering whether I shouldn't give it a shot after all. If Goodreads unexpectedly folded up - these things happen - it would be so annoying to lose my writing. Self-publishing has become cheap and easy. And I've got a fair amount of experience with type-setting. How much work could it be to implement a few scripts to turn HTML into LaTeX and then upload a PDF file to Lulu?
Well, it's never quite as straightforward as you think, but here is the result. For the benefit of other people who may feel tempted to do the same thing, let me give you the key lessons I've learned from this little adventure:
1. Sign up an editor and some readers. No author can be objective about their own work; they need keen external eyes to tell them both what's good and what's bad about it. It was fortunate for me that notgettingenough, who has long-term experience with publishing, took an early interest in the project and was willing to act as editor. She ruthlessly corrected several of my dumber ideas, forced me to think about issues I'd happily have ignored, and made sure that the book was produced to professional standards. My advisory committee - BirdBrian, Mariel and Ian - read through the manuscript and gave me encouragement and helpful suggestions. They convinced me that it was worth continuing and taking the time required to make it look good. Thank you, guys! You have all been so thoughtful and patient, and I greatly appreciate it!
2. Think carefully about which reviews to include. Not groaned over my initial selection, which probably took an hour to do and had no structure whatsoever. She encouraged me to group the reviews by style and type of book, after which I saw that some things were grossly overrepresented. Even if bashing Twilight is the Goodreads national sport, I didn't need this many examples of the genre. And much as I love writing about Flaubert, Proust, Wittgenstein and Kasparov, it's likely that the average reader will not share my enthusiasms to the same degree.
3. Acquire at least a smattering of knowledge regarding copyright. As I now understand it, most quoted text that might appear in a Goodreads review should be covered by the rules on Fair Use. I found the following passage from this page helpful:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied..."
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that copyrighted images are generally not easy to include: the problem is that you'll be using the whole image, rather than just an illustrative part of it. Martha, my talented cover artist, had put together the following very attractive cover:
[image]
But, alas, the Estate of E.H. Shepherd thought this was an "inappropriate" use of Pooh Bear's image and politely but firmly refused to grant me permission. I didn't even get that far with Penguin (Jemima Puddle-Duck) or Gallimard (the Little Prince), who still haven't given me any clear answers. Not, in her capacity as excutive editor, made the sensible but painful decision to go for a simpler solution.
So there have been a few rough moments, but all in all I found this an interesting and rewarding experience. And now, I hardly need add, I'm curious to see if anyone is going to buy it! It's available from this Lulu page....more
Gabriel, Michael and Raphael Celestial Architects Eternity
Dear Mr. O'Brien,
Thank you for your response to our recent tender. After due deliberation, we must regretfully inform you that we have decided not to implement your interesting plan for restructuring and downsizing the afterlife.
Our accounting department confirms your statement that it would be more cost-effective only to retain Hell and wind up operations in Purgatory and Paradise. This would, however, directly conflict with our mission statement, which involves offering the chance of salvation to each and every soul. Our senior counsel, based on numerous precedents, contests your claim that this is in principle equivalent with "a boot grinding a human face, forever".
We appreciate your ingenious compromise suggestion that the "integrated afterlife experience", as you describe it, could be administered by a board chaired by the late Pope Boniface VIII, and accept that this offer was made in good faith. None the less, our feeling is that Signor Boniface is not in all respects a suitable person to fill this role.
The above notwithstanding, we are agreeable to implementing several of the specific points listed in Appendix C which concern improvements to the current structure of Hell. In particular, we will shortly be commencing an upgrade programme according to which the jaws of His Infernal Majesty will be substantially expanded. We are pleased to inform you that the work will be completed well before your own demise, according to our records scheduled for April 19, 1993, and we have already reserved a place for you next to Signor Cassius.
As she neared the gates, Offred saw an inscription over them which read
ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE
She passed through, and they closed silently behind her. A moment later, she heard a voice that seemed to come simultaneously from the ground, the sky, and the inside of her head.
"You have forfeited all your rights," said the voice. "You will be my chattel and my plaything here through all eternity, and I will do with you as I please. There is no end to the ways I will find to torment you; but the first and greatest of these torments is that you will have no hope."
Offred was rather reminded of her late husband. I will find it easy to get used to my new life, she thought. But then she remembered that she was now dead. ...more
Loading...
