Discover Roger Penrose's Non-Mathematical Books!

[ubergewehr273]

Hi everybody & a happy new year!
Could somebody suggest books by Roger Penrose that do not involve mathematics ?
Books that are more towards popular science ?

 

[jedishrfu]

I think you won't find any Penrose book without some detail math. My favorite is Road to Reality:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776311/?tag=pfamazon01-20

There's a fair amount of advanced math but I think there's a lot of writing too that would help you navigate through the math if you take the time.

 

[vanhees71]

Yes, Road to Reality is great but full of math, but that's more a feature than a bug. There's no way to explain physics right without a minimum of math, but math is great fun too!

 

[ubergewehr273]

What about "The Emperor's new mind" ?
Is that a good read ?

 

[ShayanJ]

What about "The Emperor's new mind" ?
Is that a good read ?

It seems that you only want a book by Penrose rather than a book on physics. These are different things!

 

[vanhees71]

I don't know "The Emperor's new mind".

 

[atyy]

The Emperor's New Mind is a good read. I can't remember whether it has equations or not. I think it is an easier book than The Road to Reality, but still quite above the average level of popular science books. But since one doesn't read a popular science book with the same intent as a textbook, it should be fine to read it to whet one's appetite as an amazing overview of modern mathematics and physics. The parts about established mathematics and physics are very good, even though they may have the occasional error. The parts about consciousness are entertaining but highly speculative, and the average reader who believes himself to be conscious will probably have as much insight into the subject as Penrose.

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, this was the book of Penrose that was one of early introductions to Schroedinger's cat. I think I was in high school or doing military service at that time, and I did write to Penrose about it, and he very kindly replied! I can't remember my question, but I believe his answer was that unitary evolution preserves orthogonality, if that makes any sense:)