Rating: 
Summary: Packed full of contemporary physics; not for everyone
Review: "The Mind of God" would be a great book for someone interested in theoretical physics and the evolution of ideas related to questions of existence. Author Paul Davies wanders through a multitude of different angles related to contemporary thought in the realm of physics and mathematics, and how explanations can be arrived at to describe creation, nature, and numerous scientific laws. Many great thinkers, past and present are cited, and it is easy to see how extensive debate can arise as scientific and philosophic thought evolve from developing theories.For someone who is seeking a link between Judeo/Christian thought and scientific explanation, this book is not likely what you're looking for, and will not be easy to read for those who are unfamiliar with cosmology, causation theories, quantum physics, logic and mathematical processes. Though I have a basic understanding of the above, I still found it hard to concentrate and grasp all the physics theories. The tie-in between scientific application and biblical history wasn't there. The 3-star rating doesn't mean this book isn't good; I just happened to be expecting something different.
Rating:
Summary: Packed full of contemporary physics; not for everyone
Review: "The Mind of God" would be a great book for someone interested in theoretical physics and the evolution of ideas related to questions of existence. Author Paul Davies wanders through a multitude of different angles related to contemporary thought in the realm of physics and mathematics, and how explanations can be arrived at to describe creation, nature, and numerous scientific laws. Many great thinkers, past and present are cited, and it is easy to see how extensive debate can arise as scientific and philosophic thought evolve from developing theories. For someone who is seeking a link between Judeo/Christian thought and scientific explanation, this book is not likely what you're looking for, and will not be easy to read for those who are unfamiliar with cosmology, causation theories, quantum physics, logic and mathematical processes. Though I have a basic understanding of the above, I still found it hard to concentrate and grasp all the physics theories. The tie-in between scientific application and biblical history wasn't there. The 3-star rating doesn't mean this book isn't good; I just happened to be expecting something different.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: A must read for anyone who is interested in Physics-Metaphysics . It is highly thought provoking.
Rating:
Summary: Dropping Mental Bombs
Review: Chapter 7 will make you think about things a little different after reading it.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-written and philosophical but not about the mind of God
Review: Davies is a competent writer and knows his science. But if you want to read an interesting book that deals with the interaction of religion and science, take a look at The Bible According to Einstein.
Rating:
Summary: Mathematics, beauty, and mystery.
Review: Davies is a professor of mathematical physics who has worked on theoretical models of quantum cosmology and has pursued studies into what kind of universe(s) might be described by suggesting the most minute alteration(s) of nature's constants. He is also a scholar well versed in philosophy and in the philosophical aspects of scientific thought. Why does science work, the author asks. Why is physical reality so wonderfully defined by the 'mindscape' of aesthetics and mathematics? Do the great minds of ages past, Plato, Augustine, Leibniz, Kant, help us with these questions?
The title invokes a well known phrase from Albert Einstein's musings and refers to the mind-bending specificity and genius that underlies the physical world. Says Davies: "I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind -- i.e., conscious awareness of the world -- is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality."
It is interesting that for many mainstream mathematicians, physicists, and cosmologists, reality is something quite different than the construct preferred by most mainstream biologists. Davies, like Einstein, is particularly fascinated with the fundamental question of why nature should be knowable at all; why science itself is inevitable. That this is the condition of our universe presents us with implications we cannot ignore, although many try. The committed philosophical materialist and the hip and happening atheist may find this book to infer conclusions that are difficult to accept; it may challenge fundamental assumptions. The impenetrable opaqueness to science of certain mysterious realities has been described by Erwin Schrödinger and in more recent years by Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose, astrophysicist John Barrow, and a great many others. Even the most ardent philosophical reductionist must admit the reality of mystery, especially when we consider the deepest explanatory bases. Logically, there must be limits to what science can "know" about the deepest explanation, about why "there is something rather than nothing." Truths impervious to empiricism? Truths impervious to rationalism? Can it be? It can, and as is implied by Gödel's incompleteness theorem, this is not so surprising. Davies, like Penrose, is more thoughtfully sober than brashly confident in his consideration of physics' popular Holy Grail, the widely promised "Theory of Everything." A thoughtful consideration of beauty and boundaries, of "the mystery at the end of the universe" -- I found the book totally engrossing. One of many fascinating considerations was the mysterious theorems of the Indian mathematical savant, S. Ramanujan. This is one of those rare books -- perhaps too good to be read only once.
Rating:
Summary: the universe and the human mind are no accident!
Review: Davies represents the leading edge of mainstream science and takes you on a journey of worldviews that begins with the Greeks and ends with the latest in leading edge sciences like set theory, complexity, quantum computation and cosmology. He asserts that metaphysical research and debate is a valid aspect of the scientific enterprise. He points out that metaphysics has been thrust into the spotlight again due to new sciences like complexity, chaos, artificial life and advances in cosmology and quantum computation. He also demonstrates his firm belief, along with greats such as, Einstein and Godel etc, in the Plutonic Realm--a transcendental level of reality where all the laws of nature and pure forms exists eternally. He argues convincingly for the validity of new computational models or analogies for the universe yet demonstrates how computation or logic can't take us to ultimate truth. Thus he runs counter to mainstream physicists who believe that we are very close to an ultimate theory of everything that will basically close the book on our adventure into the unknown, other than cleaning up the odd loose end. Davies concludes that perhaps it will be mystical insight that is needed to get us beyond the barriers of logic and classical computation to glimpse the mystery at the end of the universe. In the final pages Davies states that he believes in a God 'concept', some sort of mind or creative principle, with the caveat that it must be utterly abstract. He makes it clear he believes the universe has been designed (pointing out that many physicists and cosmologists have come to the same conclusion but that biologists and geneticists mostly disagree) and the emergence of life and human intelligence and the fact that the laws of nature can be understood by us in a formal manner is no coincidence. He believes that the universe exists for a reason and that humanity must play some important role in this. Overall a brave effort by a mainstream scientists to open the debate on metaphysics and expand the boundaries of science in the true scientific spirit of enquiry. If you like books full of science as the basis of deep philosophical questions and metaphysics then this is for you. For mainstream readers who want to stretch their paradigms to the limit then this book will do the job. For the more seasoned scientific metaphysician it is an informative appetizer, as he only reveals his position and leaves it all open in the last pages. (...)
Rating:
Summary: A good book on the Science-Religion issue
Review: Davies states that he doesn't believe in any "standard" religion, and his grounds for some kind of theism come from Achinas' non infinite regression argument. The second chapter is a good summary of current and past cosmologies of the twentieth century. However, there is something missing: he doesn't say that many of the latter cosmologies are not really scientific, but metaphysical. The big-bang may be considered a scientific theory, because it is testable and falsifiable. The main arguments on its behalf come from successful predictions, such as the relative abundance of the elements in the universe, or the 3.5 degrees cosmic background radiation. But many new theories (superstrings, multiple universes and the like) are not testable. They receive support because "the mathematics are beautiful" or "they don't require a creation, and thus a creator". Those are not scientific reasons. There is no way some of those theories may be refuted. They only look scientific because they use mathematical formulae, but they are really metaphysical and should be treated as such. John Horton calls these kind of theories "ironic science", implying that they really are not science. In any case, these theories never answer the big question (where does everything come from?), they only hide it under an appearance of science. One of these theories could be true, but that would not disprove God's existence, which is compatible with any theory. It cannot be falsified (it is not a scientific question). You can never prove or disprove it through science (experimentation). You have to take it (or its negation) as a postulate and see where it takes us. Davies says that God's attributes are now being attributed to the laws. Thus, they are called "omnipotent", because they apply to every body, and "omniscient", because they apply without receiving any information from the body. To me, this is just wordplay. To apply those attributes to the laws, you have to redefine the words. God's omnipotence and omniscience do not mean that. Chapter 5 introduces the idea of the universe as a computer. This is a typical comparison. Mediaeval man compared the universe to a cathedral. In the eighteenth century, it was compared to a watch. We now use the computer. We always use the most complicated mechanism we have. Tomorrow, the parallel will be different. I would take them all with a grain of salt, they will probably be considered ridiculous in the future. Chapter 6 makes a good point. Why are the universal laws so amenable to the rules of Mathematics? This must mean something. But the last two chapters are the best, Davies expounds well a modern form of the argument of design for God's existence. I've found him honest, doing efforts to consider every possible counter-argument by atheists. I disagree with his assertion that a believer scientist must either dissociate science from religion (by dedicating six days a week to the former, just Sundays to the latter) or have a non-standard religion, as himself. He also says a believer scientist has to be "liberal". One may agree with this or not. It depends on how you define liberal.
Rating:
Summary: A Quantum mechanics must read!
Review: Fairly easy to read; even for people with little knowledge of physics. Covers the scientific and philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Book for Mathematical Physicists - which I am not
Review: Finally, on Pg.206 (of 232) Mr. Davies remarks, "As I have remarked once or twice already, it is very difficult to communicate the concept of nature's mathematical subtlety to those unacquainted with mathematical physics, yet to the scientists involved, what I am referring to is clear enough." I did not note the first one or two times that the author said this, it must have been buried within the unstructured text which waxed eloquently for page after page without driving to a point. This is clearly not a book for anybody but scientists who enjoy mathematical physicists. Having persevered through enough collegiate physics, mathematics and chemistry classes to scar my GPA, I thought that this book would be a difficult, but achievable read, with the author serving as a coach to get me through. Instead he served as more of an obstacle. There is no doubt that the author is well versed in his subject matter. He is not, however, well-versed in making his subject matter easily understood. The chapters are loosely constructed and rambling. There are numerous references back to other parts of the text (such as, "As I mentioned in the previous chapter," or, "As stated in Chapter __"). These references are made in such a way as to seriously undermine, rather than compliment, the difficult ideas that the author is presenting. On top of that, the author makes reference to other books in such volume that one wonders if this would better be called a summary of the subject area, rather than an original text. Indeed, references to Mr. Stephen Hawking's books are so common it felt as if I were reading the Cliff's Notes. There were several areas where the author did present some interesting ideas, the computer-based 'life' simulation, the ability to view the universe as a computer and of course, the Hawking reference of the world on the back of a turtle. All very interesting. However, I felt like an archaeologist sifting through endless piles of dirt to find the occasional item of interest. This book is probably perfect for people who are very well versed in mathematical physics and want to delve further into the philosophical consequences of that area of study. The quotes on the back of the book from all the common book review sources make this seem like an easy, introductory read, when it isn't. If you're not a mathematical physicist, leave it for the people that are.
|
