Reddit reviews The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos
We found 11 Reddit comments about The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Vintage Books
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes/dp/0307278123
In a world of infinite universes, there's also one where Randy "Macho Man" Savage is the p4p, and Demetrius Johnson beats Fedor in PRIDE
Some of my favorites:
Brian Greene -- The Fabric of the Cosmos, The Elegant Universe, and The Hidden Reality. Greene is, to my mind, very similar to Hawking in his ability to take complex subjects and make them understandable for the physics layman.
Hawking -- I see you've read A Brief History of Time, but Hawking has a couple of other books that are great. The Grand Design, The Universe in a Nutshell, and A Briefer History of Time.
Same thing applies to Brian Cox. Here's his Amazon page.
Leonard Susskind -- The Black Hole Wars. Here's the basic idea behind this book. One of the basic tenets of physics is that "information" is never lost. Stephen Hawking delivered a presentation that apparently showed that when matter falls into a black hole, information is lost. This set the physics world on edge. Susskind (and his partner Gerard T'Hooft) set out to prove Hawking wrong. Spoilers: they do so. And in doing so, they apparently proved that what we see as 3 dimensions is probably similar to those 2-D stickers that project a hologram. It's called the Holographic Principle.
Lee Smolin -- The Trouble with Physics. If you read the aforementioned books and/or keep up with physics through pop science sources, you'll probably recognize that string theory is pretty dang popular. Smolin's book is a criticism of string theory. He's also got a book that's on my to-read list called Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.
Joao Magueijo -- Faster Than the Speed of Light. This is another physics book that cuts against the prevailing academic grain. Physics says that the speed of light is a universal speed limit. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Magueijo's book is about his theory that the speed of light is, itself, variable, and it's been different speeds at different times in the universe's history. You may not end up agreeing with Magueijo, but the guy is smart, he's cocky, and he writes well.
I've two recommendations:
Mini physics lecture coming right up! I think /u/slugwind is our resident physicist so she (I think, sorry if otherwise) might be able to give you some more insight.
---------------------
At its core the uncertainty principle is telling you that you fundamentally cannot know both the velocity and position of a particle with complete accuracy for both. Knowing more about one means that you know less about the other. Here's a nice explanatory anecdote that I'm stealing from this book:
Say you've got a camera set up in a room, there's a fly buzzing around, and you can adjust the shutter speed of your camera. If you crank up the shutter speed and look at the resulting picture you can tell exactly where the fly is, but you don't know anything about its velocity (remember that velocity is a vector, it has a value for speed and direction). Conversely, if you slow down the shutter speed and look at the resulting picture the fly is very blurry, but you can infer from the shutter speed how fast it was going and in what direction.
That's pretty much the core of it. By sacrificing knowledge about velocity (increasing shutter speed) you can know more and more about the fly's position. By sacrificing knowledge about its position you can know more about its velocity. What you can't do is have great information about both simultaneously.
----------------------------------
Now, as this pertains to your post, I would argue that because decisions are made based on the information available to the agent at the time things like the uncertainty principle can be extrapolated upward, if only because knowing everything is impossible.
These are not fast questions, haha.
>What do you think is on the other side of the black hole?
Theoretically, if the black hole is part of a pair that were created from entangled subatomic particles, then they would be connected by an Einstein-Rosen bridge, and (again, theoretically) if you were to allow yourself to be sucked into one of them you'd emerge wherever the other one happens to exist. This could be in another galaxy, or yeah, some people think it's possible you could end up in another universe.
>Is there a lot of universes?
Theoretical physicists (particularly those working in string theory) are starting to think that yes, there are. Brian Greene and Michio Kaku have written reasonably accessible books on this theory, if you're interested.
>what about aliens?
Of course. It is highly unlikely that in a universe filled with billions of galaxies, each of which contains hundreds of millions of stars, only one of them would have a planet in its orbit that is capable of sustaining life. Robert Lanza hypothesizes that, in fact, the universe is biocentric - that life and consciousness are not mere accidents, but what the structure of the universe is based around. This, too, would suggest that life cannot then be confined to one planet.
>What happens to the infj emotion after their death? Are you thinking of reincarnation?
Not reincarnation exactly, no. My beliefs are pantheistic in a way that isn't really compatible with reincarnation in the traditional sense. My concept of "God" is, essentially, "the combined energy of the universe". Part of this energy is used to power my body and mind; what some might call a soul. But my "soul" isn't a discrete entity; it is made of energy, which is fungible. So, when I die, that energy (and therefore, I) will return to "everything". Of course, it will then be used to power other things... perhaps another life form, perhaps a star, or wind, or electricity. But it won't be the "same" energy - just as, if you pour a cup of water into the ocean and then fill another cup from it, it won't be the "same" water. It comes from the same source, but the individual molecules are probably going to be different. But I do think our thoughts and memories remain, as a sort of... resonance, let's say. They become part of everything, too. When people talk about remembering past lives, most likely they are accessing these resonating memories. But, not because your soul has moved into their body - rather, because you, and they, are part of the same whole.
Which, I guess, might sound like quibbling - it's not that different from reincarnation, not really. It's just that one view sees every soul as separate, and the other does not.
> I prefer Brian Greene and Sean Carroll for my PopSci cosmology myself.
Brian Greene's The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos was one of the recommendations.
Idk if Brian Greene is welcomed by this sub but I found his book on multiverse a incredibly informative. It talks about all different types of "multiverses" posited, including this one.
Link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307278123
There's a book as well: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes/dp/0307278123
These will answer all your questions. I implore you to read them. They are fantastic.
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Cosmos/dp/0307278123/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?keywords=brian+greene&qid=1569877277&sprefix=briane+gree&sr=8-6
https://www.amazon.com/Parallel-Worlds-Journey-Creation-Dimensions/dp/B01GVZRNDY/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?keywords=michio+kaku&qid=1569877418&s=gateway&sprefix=michio&sr=8-5
Thanks for that; I wasn't aware of Roko's Basilisk but found a breezey explainer (on Slate ). It is interesting; the survey questions made me think about a 2011 Brian Greene book which runs through a bunch of theories of multiple or simultaneous universes.
Check out Brian Greene's book The Hidden Reality for the latest thinking on this topic. There might be an infinite number of universes being created at every moment.