Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions
- Downloads：3228
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-08-17 02:16:34
- Update Date：2025-09-24
- Status：finish
- Author：Sabine Hossenfelder
- ISBN：1984879456
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
"A contrarian scientist wrestles with the big questions that modern physics raises， and what physics says about the human condition Not only can we not currently explain the origin of the universe， it is questionable we will ever be able to explain it。 The notion that there are universes within particles， or that particles are conscious， is ascientific， as is the hypothesis that our universe is a computer simulation。 On the other hand， the idea that the universe itself is conscious is difficult to rule out entirely。
According to Sabine Hossenfelder， it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers， or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics。 Science and religion have the same roots， and they still tackle some of the same questions: Where do we come from？ Where do we go to？ How much can we know？ The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics。 Over the last century， physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature。 Not always， though， have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate。
In this lively， thought-provoking book， Hossenfelder takes on the biggest questions in physics: Does the past still exist？ Do particles think？ Was the universe made for us？ Has physics ruled out free will？ Will we ever have a theory of everything？ She lays out how far physicists are on the way to answering these questions， where the current limits are， and what questions might well remain unanswerable forever。 Her book offers a no-nonsense yet entertaining take on some of the toughest riddles in existence， and will give the reader a solid grasp on what we know-and what we don't know"
According to Sabine Hossenfelder， it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers， or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics。 Science and religion have the same roots， and they still tackle some of the same questions: Where do we come from？ Where do we go to？ How much can we know？ The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics。 Over the last century， physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature。 Not always， though， have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate。
In this lively， thought-provoking book， Hossenfelder takes on the biggest questions in physics: Does the past still exist？ Do particles think？ Was the universe made for us？ Has physics ruled out free will？ Will we ever have a theory of everything？ She lays out how far physicists are on the way to answering these questions， where the current limits are， and what questions might well remain unanswerable forever。 Her book offers a no-nonsense yet entertaining take on some of the toughest riddles in existence， and will give the reader a solid grasp on what we know-and what we don't know"
Reviews
Luca Signorelli
，
"Existential Physics” is the second book of science outreach written by Sabine Hossenfelder， a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies， blogger and very popular host of the Youtube channel “Science Without the Gobbledygook”。 Her first book， “Lost In Math”， was released in 2018 and contained a very well-argued and structured warning against the misuse of non-scientific parameters like “beauty” in the search for new theories in physics。 Despite being arguably often dif "Existential Physics” is the second book of science outreach written by Sabine Hossenfelder， a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies， blogger and very popular host of the Youtube channel “Science Without the Gobbledygook”。 Her first book， “Lost In Math”， was released in 2018 and contained a very well-argued and structured warning against the misuse of non-scientific parameters like “beauty” in the search for new theories in physics。 Despite being arguably often difficult to fully understand for a broad public， it was a success and， along with the above-mentioned Youtube channel， made Sabine a household name。“Existential Physics” is a much easier and more accessible book than “Lost in Math”， which Sabine originally planned to title “More Than This” （a reference to the Roxy Music song）。 In my modest opinion， the publisher-mandated change of title was not for the best。 There is some existentialism in this book， but existentialism is not its main point。The original title captured the real aim more intriguingly: an accessible presentation of what accepted science tells us about many “big questions” and how， surprisingly， the answers often point to the existence of “more” than the dry positivistic naysaying that we usually associate with “hard sciences”。 The “butterfly made of particles” cover artwork （another of Sabine's ideas） gets this concept magnificently。Now， don’t think for a minute that this is one of those “My Little Pony” popsci books mixing quantum physics and general relativity with grandiose and bombastic statements about life， love， and the future of humanity （I’m looking at you， Michio Kaku！）。 No， it’s a very solid and balanced overview of science’s answer to nine of the above-mentioned “big questions”， from “Does the Past Still Exist” to “Are Humans Predictable？”The questions discussed are those for which science CAN give some meaningful clues， so no， everyone’s favorite question “Does God Exist？” is not included， at least per se。 But the relationship between science and religion （and personal beliefs in general） is one of the central themes of the book， as it is the relationship between science and pseudoscience。 Some of the book’s chapters are comprised of interviews with leading science figures （David Deutsch， Zeeya Merali， Tim Palmer and the mighty Roger Penrose）， and the first question she asks them is “Are you religious？”。 Two of them give straightforward answers， the other two are more nuanced。 Sabine （who says she herself is not religious） doesn’t conflate “religiosity” and “pseudoscience”; in fact， she makes a careful distinction between what’s pseudoscientific， like horoscopes， and what's “ascientific”。 Indeed， she clarifies that some fashionable “scientific” theories like the multiverse are basically indistinguishable from religion; if you want to believe it， fine， but that’s not science。 She also strongly feels that some “science” is just pseudoscientific gibberish。 I personally find her arguments on this subject very difficult to refute。We live in complicated times， and Sabine introduces her book with a warning to the readers， saying that some of them may find the book content disturbing because it deals with questions （like the existence of free will or the universe's “purpose”） that some people may find anguish inducing。 I understand why she did this， but I must say that while the book is attention-grabbing to the point of being， in some parts， mesmerizing， no passage stuck me as “disturbing”。 If anyone is going to be disturbed， I doubt it will be someone with religious inclinations。 Sabine debates how modern science dispenses almost entirely with the notion of free will （true） and how “free will” itself is very poorly defined in philosophical terms （also true）。 After the book was released， the most agitated rebuttal I saw came not from “religious” types but from a certain kind of “science fan"。 I’m normally a tolerant person， but I was quite appalled by a particular type of reaction， namely， “Sabine is wrong because free will is necessary otherwise， the idea of personal responsibility and ethics will be damaged， which will justify homicide and the death penalty”。 If you need science and Sabine Hossenfelder to tell you free will exists before deciding to hug your kid （or not） or rob a bank （or not）， the problem is neither science nor Sabine Hossenfelder; the problem is that you need to get a life。 I know that sounds harsh， but there’s a limit to what might be termed “a physiological and common reaction to life’s great questions”。A less obvious but still engrossing theme is in the very first chapter: is the past still here？ Sabine shows how General Relativity lends credibility to what is called “the block universe”， a universe （our own） where the present is an illusion， and all the “times” （or at least， all the past moments anywhere） are in some sense still “here” now。 She also enters into a thorough discussion of how information （ALL information） is preserved in the Universe and about the eternity （or lack of thereof） of mathematical truths。 This chapter was introduced by one of Sabine's most popular YT videos， and it seems to have struck a chord with most viewers。 It contains one of the most genuinely chilly （or heartwarming， depending on your point of view） passages of the book: “Once your grandmother dies， information about her – her unique way of navigating life， her wisdom， her kindness， her sense of humour – becomes， in practice， irretrievable。 It disperses quickly into forms we can no longer communicate with and that may no longer allow an experience of self-awareness。 Nevertheless， if you trust our mathematics， the information is still there， somewhere， somehow， spread out over the universe but preserved forever。 It might sound crazy， but it’s compatible with all we currently know。”Again: very little of what Sabine says can be considered “controversial”: There are two exceptions， however。 One is in chapter three， where she discusses the “arrow of time” in the context of answering questions about why we don’t “grow younger”。 Here， she moves on to an attack on 'entropy，' which may be the most misused term of scientific jargon ever。 Sabine doesn’t think entropy is of much use when we describe the entire universe， and this statement is a monumental deal， fated to attract the ire of that part of the scientific world that would question even their own academic credentials before doubting the universality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics。 The same chapter discusses another popsci favourite: Boltzman’s Brains。 These are， putting it very roughly， self-aware brains that could pop up spontaneously in the universe， giving enough time and a big-enough entropy variation。 This is another part of the book that may raise some eyebrows， but believe me， it’s all great reading， and there's nothing very “heretical”。The second theme guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of some Quantum Theorists is one of Sabine’s favourite themes: the superdeterministic interpretation of quantum theory。 You'll have to read to book to really understand what “superdeterminism” is， but let’s just say that is a theory that removes any talk of “unrealism” and “nonlocality” from the quantum world and much （but not all） its strangeness。 The trade-off is that superdeterminism states– I’m greatly simplifying here – EVERY measurement in the quantum world is already determined from the beginning of the universe， robbing scientists of the chance of making any truly random choice when testing the properties of quantum particles。 The other trade-off is that superdeterminism is one of the so-called “hidden variables” theories， a set of theories that state we don’t yet know how the quantum world really works。 And this is very controversial too。My own background is math and not physics， but I’ve found “Existential Physics”， which has almost no math in it， very， very easy to follow， and I think it's a book that anyone curious about science could read comfortably。 As I’ve said， very little in the book is genuinely hard to swallow。 While I don't agree with 100% of what Sabine says， she’s the physicist， and I’m not。 But， really， that’s beside the point。 This is popular science at its best。 Do yourself a favour and buy this book。 。。。more
Philemon -
，
Ms。 Hossenfelder's is an unapologetic， chip-on-her-shoulder reductionist who repeatedly asserts that nothing disproving reductionism has ever been found using the scientific method。 I say big deal， science consists of provisional theories and we have no way of measuring our ignorance， which could be vast and， for all we know， near total。 The author seems untroubled by the fact that science has nothing to say about value or meaning and the dimensions they add to experience。 The book gets four sta Ms。 Hossenfelder's is an unapologetic， chip-on-her-shoulder reductionist who repeatedly asserts that nothing disproving reductionism has ever been found using the scientific method。 I say big deal， science consists of provisional theories and we have no way of measuring our ignorance， which could be vast and， for all we know， near total。 The author seems untroubled by the fact that science has nothing to say about value or meaning and the dimensions they add to experience。 The book gets four stars anyway， though， since it adeptly covers a lot of fascinating areas， including consciousness， multiverses， simulations， Boltzmann brains， free will， AI， and much more。 。。。more
Irene
，
If Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli are ever up for a slumber party， I'll bring the snacks。This is a philosophy book。 It's a physics book in essence， but the line between quantum physics and philosophy seems very thin to me。 It's always a nice feeling to read your own opinions put very eloquently in a book， so I had an excellent reading experience。My only points of contention with Hossenfelder are her insistence on talking about the brain as if it were a computer （I think that， as a concept If Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli are ever up for a slumber party， I'll bring the snacks。This is a philosophy book。 It's a physics book in essence， but the line between quantum physics and philosophy seems very thin to me。 It's always a nice feeling to read your own opinions put very eloquently in a book， so I had an excellent reading experience。My only points of contention with Hossenfelder are her insistence on talking about the brain as if it were a computer （I think that， as a concept， it falls short of the brain's complexity）， which ties into the issue with scale。 She often wants to apply particle physics to psychology， and for the same reason， I think that simplifies how brains work。 Which is why we still don't know why there are different rules for particles than for bigger systems。The unknown unknowns of neuroscience and quantum physics are likely to overlap， but I've somehow reached the same conclusions about free will that she has， through a different path。 Looking forward to getting a physical copy of this book so I can re-read it and annotate it。 。。。more
Ryan Boissonneault
，
It’s a telling fact that centuries of progress in modern science has left the big questions of metaphysics ultimately unresolved。 Questions like: How did the universe begin， and how will it end？ Does God exist？ Do we have free will？ What is consciousness？ How do mind and matter interact？ Existential Physics by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder goes a long way in explaining why this is the case。 The short answer is that， as physical phenomena become increasingly smaller and more remote—and therefore It’s a telling fact that centuries of progress in modern science has left the big questions of metaphysics ultimately unresolved。 Questions like: How did the universe begin， and how will it end？ Does God exist？ Do we have free will？ What is consciousness？ How do mind and matter interact？ Existential Physics by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder goes a long way in explaining why this is the case。 The short answer is that， as physical phenomena become increasingly smaller and more remote—and therefore outside the reach of observation and measurement—we must increasingly look to mathematics for answers。 But， as Hossenfelder notes， oftentimes more than one mathematical model can fit the current facts， and， without the assistance of further experiment or observation， there’s no way to verify whether or not the chosen mathematical model is in fact an accurate depiction of reality。 The upshot is， the theory of the multiverse， for example， turns out to be， in a sense， no more scientific than the assertion that God created the universe 6，000 years ago。 The multiverse may be more consistent with current science—and is supported by mathematical models—but the point is that， without the possibility of directly observing it， there is simply no way of confirming we have the right mathematical model， or that some other set of equations suggesting some other theory is in fact correct。 Hossenfelder points out that while it may be fun to talk about computer-simulated universes， multiverses， brains-in-vats， and panpsychism， we should remind ourselves that all of these theories reach far beyond what experimental physics can actually confirm。 It doesn’t mean that these theories will never be confirmed， but at the moment， they represent pure speculation。 And speculation that is mathematically sophisticated is still， in the end， speculation。 Of course， as Immanuel Kant noted， the human mind is burdened by questions that， due to its limitations， it cannot answer， but that due to its nature it also cannot ignore。 And so we will likely continue to speculate beyond the facts， often invoking the mysteries of quantum physics as support for a host of quack theories （and ignoring the fact that the behavior of particles doesn’t translate to the behavior of macroscopic objects）。 But what this book makes clear is that this type of speculation is not limited to the idiocy of common supernatural beliefs， and that even scientists quite frequently cannot resist engaging in wild speculations。 It just so happens that they’re better at math than the rest of us， so it’s harder to call them out on it。 But we should also remember that it’s not just our enthrallment with mathematics that’s the problem。 There’s also the problem of how subjective experience seems to resist mathematical/mechanical explanations entirely （see the Mary’s room thought experiment）。 Hossenfelder does a rather poor job of explaining these deeper philosophical issues， but that’s unfortunately what one would come to expect lately from a scientist venturing into the field of philosophy。 There are additional problems。 Hossenfelder appears to exempt her own preferred views from the same level of skepticism she applies to the theories of other scientists。 For example， she’s uncomfortable with the idea of multiple universes because there’s no experimental data to confirm it。 And yet， she’s perfectly ok with the idea that we could replace each one of our neurons with silicon chips and maintain consciousness。 If she took her own advice， however， she might realize that the idea of artificially creating consciousness has the same level of empirical support as the multiverse; that is to say， none。 The bottom line: Take the conclusions found in the book for what they’re worth—one scientist’s views on difficult questions that are far from being resolved anytime soon。 。。。more
John
，
Basic physics introduction， quantum myth-busting， and adjudication between science and philosophy。 Hossenfelder leads an overview of modern physics that one might expect from any university classroom， though focused on topics like time， cosmology， entropy， information， free will， and more。 Unfortunately， as she herself is fond of saying， “there is nothing interesting going on here。” For a book called existential physics， this one has very little to say about existence。 ”Science doesn’t say anyth Basic physics introduction， quantum myth-busting， and adjudication between science and philosophy。 Hossenfelder leads an overview of modern physics that one might expect from any university classroom， though focused on topics like time， cosmology， entropy， information， free will， and more。 Unfortunately， as she herself is fond of saying， “there is nothing interesting going on here。” For a book called existential physics， this one has very little to say about existence。 ”Science doesn’t say anything about whether [what’s beyond observation] exists or doesn’t exist。””We are alone in our heads， and， at least so far， we have no possibility to directly infer the existence of anything besides our own thoughts。””。。。one’s own subjective experience is all any scientist has ever had to work with。”Hossenfelder’s thoughts on free will and time， however， are well worth listening to。 Instead of this book， I recommend her YouTube video on the topics， which I found to be more compelling though remarkably similar in content。 "Once you agree that anything exists now elsewhere， even though you see it only later， you are forced to accept that everything in the universe exists now。"”Our existence transcends the passage of time。 We always have been， and always will be， children of the universe。”Although she can be refreshingly honest about the limits of scientific knowledge， Hossenfelder has a habit of reverting to words like objectivity， knowledge， and empiricism with the blind devotion of a religious fanatic， naming skeptics as "delusional。" She carves out a narrow territory for hope， belief， and faith， but is eager to throw red flags at any thought that trespasses upon the illusory “facts” of a science she admits can tell us nothing about reality。 。。。more
Richard Lawrence
，
Excellent read， especially if you are a fan of her YouTube videos。 I was hoping that she would talk a bit about Superdetermanism but， alas， she did not cover it。
Frank
，