What are you currently reading?

  • Thread starter Infinitum
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Reading
In summary, the conversation is about what books the participants are currently reading and their thoughts on them. Some of the books mentioned include Fermat's Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Towers of Midnight by Robert Jordan, A Life of Discovery: Michael Faraday, Giant of the Scientific Revolution by James Hamilton, For Whom The Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway, The Roman Invasion of Britain, Chinatown: Portrait of a Closed Society, The Monster of Florence by Preston & Spezi, The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Origins: Fourteen Billion Years Of Cosmic Evolution by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith, Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital by
  • #386
Just re-read the famous Hound of the Baskervilles.

This was prompted by seeing a British TV mystery set in Dartmoor in the present in which the spectral hound was replaced by one of those large, wild cats that are rumored to be lurking all around England. It had many good shots of the actual moor and the mysterious "tors." This made a reading of the Sherlock Holmes tale more vivid.
 
  • Like
Likes Aufbauwerk 2045
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #387
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533524/the-knowledge-illusion-by-steven-sloman-and-philip-fernbach/9780399184352/, by Steven Slomack and Philip Fernbach, 2017, Riverhead Books. Two cognitive scientists explain why most of what we believe we know, we actually don't know as individuals; rather, we rely on group knowledge and knowledge embodied in our environment - yet often we are unaware that this is the case. Very relevant to the problem today of widespread mistrust or ignorance of science, even among supposedly "educated" persons.

The authors use many examples of knowledge vs. ignorance drawn from science, technology, and industry ,as well as non-science examples related to politics, social issues, and public policies. Here's an interesting passage from the Introduction:

This book is being written at a time of immense polarization on the American political scene. Liberals and conservatives find each other’s views repugnant, and as a result, Democrats and Republicans cannot find common ground or compromise. The U.S. Congress is unable to pass even benign legislation; the Senate is preventing the administration from making important judicial and administrative appointments merely because the appointments are coming from the other side.

One reason for this gridlock is that both politicians and voters don’t realize how little they understand. Whenever an issue is important enough for public debate, it is also complicated enough to be difficult to understand. Reading a newspaper article or two just isn’t enough. Social issues have complex causes and unpredictable consequences. It takes a lot of expertise to really understand the implications of a position, and even expertise may not be enough. Conflicts between, say, police and minorities cannot be reduced to simple fear or racism or even to both. Along with fear and racism, conflicts arise because of individual experiences and expectations, because of the dynamics of a specific situation, because of misguided training and misunderstandings. Complexity abounds. If everybody understood this, our society would likely be less polarized.

Instead of appreciating complexity, people tend to affiliate with one or another social dogma. Because our knowledge is enmeshed with that of others, the community shapes our beliefs and attitudes. It is so hard to reject an opinion shared by our peers that too often we don’t even try to evaluate claims based on their merits. We let our group do our thinking for us. Appreciating the communal nature of knowledge should make us more realistic about what’s determining our beliefs and values.

This would improve how we make decisions. We all make decisions that we’re not proud of. These include mistakes like failing to save for retirement, as well as regrets like giving into temptation when we really should know better. We’ll see that we can deploy the community of knowledge to help people overcome their natural limitations in ways that increase the well-being of the community at large.​

I'm only partway through Chapter 1, but even so far it's quite interesting. Many examples are drawn from applied physics, with two related to nuclear weapons. The first, used to lead off the Introduction, is the Castle Bravo test explosion of the "Shrimp" H-bomb in 1954, the power of which was underestimated by the scientists involved, by nearly a factor of 3; this calculation error led to fallout on two populated atolls, later resulting in thyroid tumors and birth defects. The second example, leading off Chap. 1, is how Louis Slotin, an otherwise experienced and careful physicist, ignored protocols during a test of beryllium spheres w/ plutonium core in 1946; by letting a screwdriver slip that he was holding in his hand, he started a fission reaction with enough hard radiation to kill himself (he died some days later) and make others in the room very sick (and likely contributing to premature deaths from cancer for three of the men). These examples are used as teasers for the implied question "How can we humans be so smart, yet also so stupid?" I haven't read far enough to know how the authors will specifically try to explain what went wrong in these two cases.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #388
Integral said:
I am currently reading the memoirs of U.S. Grant. I was pleasantly surprised to find them a good read. He provides pretty good order of battles with some copies of orders he wrote. Recommended for anyone interested in the US Civil War.

I read the book after hearing Gore Vidal praise it as one of the best works of American literature. He quoted Grant's statement that nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions, and that the Civil War was America's punishment for the Mexican War.

Since you are interested in the Civil War, you may also like The Second Day by Harry Pfanz. It's a detailed account of the second day of Gettysburg.
 
  • #389
I don't normally read fiction, but this year I felt like reading Dark Matter by Blake Crouch. It's about a physicist who managed to put a macroscopic object into superposition(yes, himself :woot:), quantum mechanical insanity ensued. Very good book.
 
  • #390
Sync by Steven Strogatz. I'm only just past the first chapter and already I'm kicking myself for not picking this up way earlier.

Strogatz is a master of mathematical imagery and can effortlessly engage his audience; he is in fact one of a handful of living mathematicians who deeply and intuitively seems to grasp the grand view of physics better than most living practicing physicists.

From the tone of the first and second chapters alone I'm already expecting this book to be better than Gleick's Chaos.
 
  • #391
UsableThought said:
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533524/the-knowledge-illusion-by-steven-sloman-and-philip-fernbach/9780399184352/, by Steven Slomack and Philip Fernbach, 2017, Riverhead Books. Two cognitive scientists explain why most of what we believe we know, we actually don't know as individuals; rather, we rely on group knowledge and knowledge embodied in our environment - yet often we are unaware that this is the case. Very relevant to the problem today of widespread mistrust or ignorance of science, even among supposedly "educated" persons.

The authors use many examples of knowledge vs. ignorance drawn from science, technology, and industry ,as well as non-science examples related to politics, social issues, and public policies. Here's an interesting passage from the Introduction:

This book is being written at a time of immense polarization on the American political scene. Liberals and conservatives find each other’s views repugnant, and as a result, Democrats and Republicans cannot find common ground or compromise. The U.S. Congress is unable to pass even benign legislation; the Senate is preventing the administration from making important judicial and administrative appointments merely because the appointments are coming from the other side.

One reason for this gridlock is that both politicians and voters don’t realize how little they understand. Whenever an issue is important enough for public debate, it is also complicated enough to be difficult to understand. Reading a newspaper article or two just isn’t enough. Social issues have complex causes and unpredictable consequences. It takes a lot of expertise to really understand the implications of a position, and even expertise may not be enough. Conflicts between, say, police and minorities cannot be reduced to simple fear or racism or even to both. Along with fear and racism, conflicts arise because of individual experiences and expectations, because of the dynamics of a specific situation, because of misguided training and misunderstandings. Complexity abounds. If everybody understood this, our society would likely be less polarized.

Instead of appreciating complexity, people tend to affiliate with one or another social dogma. Because our knowledge is enmeshed with that of others, the community shapes our beliefs and attitudes. It is so hard to reject an opinion shared by our peers that too often we don’t even try to evaluate claims based on their merits. We let our group do our thinking for us. Appreciating the communal nature of knowledge should make us more realistic about what’s determining our beliefs and values.

This would improve how we make decisions. We all make decisions that we’re not proud of. These include mistakes like failing to save for retirement, as well as regrets like giving into temptation when we really should know better. We’ll see that we can deploy the community of knowledge to help people overcome their natural limitations in ways that increase the well-being of the community at large.​

I'm only partway through Chapter 1, but even so far it's quite interesting. Many examples are drawn from applied physics, with two related to nuclear weapons. The first, used to lead off the Introduction, is the Castle Bravo test explosion of the "Shrimp" H-bomb in 1954, the power of which was underestimated by the scientists involved, by nearly a factor of 3; this calculation error led to fallout on two populated atolls, later resulting in thyroid tumors and birth defects. The second example, leading off Chap. 1, is how Louis Slotin, an otherwise experienced and careful physicist, ignored protocols during a test of beryllium spheres w/ plutonium core in 1946; by letting a screwdriver slip that he was holding in his hand, he started a fission reaction with enough hard radiation to kill himself (he died some days later) and make others in the room very sick (and likely contributing to premature deaths from cancer for three of the men). These examples are used as teasers for the implied question "How can we humans be so smart, yet also so stupid?" I haven't read far enough to know how the authors will specifically try to explain what went wrong in these two cases.
I completely agree with the premise. And there is the corollary that if you do not go along with either side , you likely become an outcast. As a slightly left-of center person who disagrees on issues with both sides I am hated ( I don't think this is an overstatement) by many on both sides.
 
  • #392
zoobyshoe said:
Just re-read the famous Hound of the Baskervilles.

This was prompted by seeing a British TV mystery set in Dartmoor in the present in which the spectral hound was replaced by one of those large, wild cats that are rumored to be lurking all around England. It had many good shots of the actual moor and the mysterious "tors." This made a reading of the Sherlock Holmes tale more vivid.
Have you seen the TV version with Jeremy Brett?
 
  • #393
Showdown by Ted Dekker
 
  • #394
I'm trying to finish Robert Greene's The Art of Seduction. If you've never heard it, don't be deceived--it's not your average PUA self-help junk. Telling the stories of figures such as Cleopatra, Casanova, Ellington, Lenin and Warhol, Greene has an amazing breadth of historical knowledge and analyses all aspects of seduction: political, social and romantic.
 
  • #395
I just started reading "The Difference Machine" by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling (1991).
Found it in a used bookstore while waiting for my wife.
Its kind of an alt steampunk history. Babbage machines as computers.
 
  • #396
"Diaries of unemployed" - selection of diaries written around 1931 for a competition organized by Collegium of Socio-Economics (part of Warsaw School of Economics). A bit monotonous and difficult to read (these were mostly people with just 3-5 years of education). Depressing in general, I don't think I will make it through both volumes. Gives quite a bit of perspective.
 
  • #397
Rereading Poincaré's 'The Foundation Of Science'. This probably remains the single best book I have ever had the pleasure of reading.
 
  • #398
Have a book called "Driven to Distraction" about ADD. But i just can't seem to get around to it...:confused:
 
  • #399
I am about halfway through Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. After seeing about two and a half of the STARZ series, I decided to start reading the first book of the book series on which the STARZ series is based. As usual, there is more scenes in the book than are in the cable series, and they add some additional depth tho the characters.
 
  • #400
Borg said:
@lavinia Do you realize that you've been responding to posts that are over 5 years old by members who have been banned or who haven't been online in years?
oh.
 
  • #401
lavinia said:
What do you like about it?

Too much to name, most importantly he makes explicit much of what often remains implicit in all areas of science and gives the clearest guide I've ever seen forward. The clarity begins with which Poincaré describes the psychological process of basic mathematical reasoning, laying bare clear differences between arithmetic reasoning and logical inference. From his exposition it is evident how this process shapes what mathematics is, from foundational questions, to basic definitions, to mathematician philosophies, to entire research programmes, down to whether one comes to find interest in these matters at all.

This exposition on mathematical thinking is threefold, namely by classifying his findings using Kantian terminology, he not only simply demarcates different schools of thought within mathematics, but also makes explicit the limitations which opposing viewpoints bring into mathematical theory with them and why, while at the same time making verifiable/falsifiable hypotheses about the actual psychology and sociology of mathematicians as well, explaining the naturally occurring differences in the choices of approaching and grasping subjects by different people.

The parts on physics are historically especially interesting to read as they are the thoughts of probably the greatest living physicist at the time of the cusp just as classical physics is becoming modern physics. Just reading only the first part of this book makes clear that Poincaré, truly was the last universalist, incorporating at the highest level mathematics, physics and philosophy in such a way not seen anymore anywhere since, especially not in todays age of specialisation. It is also very interesting to note that Feynman's Messenger Lectures on The Character of Physical Law pretty much seem to be to a large extent a dumbed down summary and extension of Poincaré's book.

I believe very much can be gained, not simply for mathematicians and scientists, but for any school child going into any direction, if they could step out of their time and join Poincaré to see all the popular schools of thinking while they were being developed and so then choose themselves instead of just getting a particular view rammed down the throat as is conventional. For example, I think an actual educational system, taught by pedagogically gifted teachers, based on Poincaré's book is capable of producing an entirely new generation of groundbreakingly novel interdisciplinary thinkers.

The hope is of course that this might exacerbate knowledge akin to the modern naturalistic view of network science in comparison with the classical purist view of graph theory, but then for all disciplines. Such a transition would be capable of enabling today's and tomorrow's generations of carrying on successfully into a world where automatisation is increasingly chipping away at tasks requiring human ingenuity without necessarily leaving anything interesting to do behind in its place.
 
  • #402
lavinia said:
What were some of the schools of mathematics in Poincare's day? What is the difference between arithmetic reasoning and logical inference?
Riemann was a neo-Kantian. His philosophical notes are in the form of antinomies. What was the effect of Kant upon science and mathematics?

Poincaré lived until 1912, and so was extremely aware of all three of the early 20th century schools which remain popular until this day. In particular, Hilbert's formalism and the logicism of Frege, Russell et al., are both views of which he was critical. In doing so, it is somewhat clear that he was one of the first intuitionists, the third major school championed a few years later by Brouwer and Weyl. Of special note however in the Foundation of Science and other works, is Poincaré's other own 'school', namely conventionalism with regard to geometry and science. Poincaré died just before the many paradoxes and results occurred leading to the crisis in the foundations of mathematics and therefore he also did not experience the full fruits of formalism and intuitionism; of course it goes without saying he was well aware of Platonism.

Regarding the difference between logical reasoning and arithmetic, I'd say start reading the book, this question is addressed in the first few chapters and I cannot explain it anywhere near as simple or as elegant as he does.

As for the effect of Kant on science and mathematics, this requires a whole other thread. All that can be said is that it was clearly profound influencing all thinkers up until Bohr, Einstein et al. who all left for America due to Nazi Germany, causing the shift of the intellectual centre of the world to America along with the rise of the instrumentalist view of science. This view was championed by particle physicists and was very successful until the seventies culminating in the Standard Model; along however came the rise of outspoken anti-philosophical attitudes and tendencies among scientists, eg. Feynman, Weinberg, Krauss and even the moderators of this board.
 
  • #403
Auto-Didact said:
Poincaré lived until 1912, and so was extremely aware of all three of the early 20th century schools which remain popular until this day. In particular, Hilbert's formalism and the logicism of Frege, Russell et al., are both views of which he was critical. In doing so, it is somewhat clear that he was one of the first intuitionists, the third major school championed a few years later by Brouwer and Weyl. Of special note however in the Foundation of Science and other works, is Poincaré's other own 'school', namely conventionalism with regard to geometry and science. Poincaré died just before the many paradoxes and results occurred leading to the crisis in the foundations of mathematics and therefore he also did not experience the full fruits of formalism and intuitionism; of course it goes without saying he was well aware of Platonism.

Regarding the difference between logical reasoning and arithmetic, I'd say start reading the book, this question is addressed in the first few chapters and I cannot explain it anywhere near as simple or as elegant as he does.

As for the effect of Kant on science and mathematics, this requires a whole other thread. All that can be said is that it was clearly profound influencing all thinkers up until Bohr, Einstein et al. who all left for America due to Nazi Germany, causing the shift of the intellectual centre of the world to America along with the rise of the instrumentalist view of science. This view was championed by particle physicists and was very successful until the seventies culminating in the Standard Model; along however came the rise of outspoken anti-philosophical attitudes and tendencies among scientists, eg. Feynman, Weinberg, Krauss and even the moderators of this board.

Very interesting. I am ignorant of the attempts to formalize reason. It will be interesting to learn about it.

In practice, mathematicians just see the truth somehow without deduction. It just hits them sort of the way a melody appears to a musician. Formal proof always seems to be an afterthought. I sat it on a topology course with Dennis Sullivan once, and he would call students to the board to demonstrate theorems. If the student started a logical deduction , he would yell out "That's not a proof!". He wanted the idea or the picture. That was the proof.

The composer Scriabin was asked how he had composed his fifth piano sonata. He said something like, 'I didn't compose it. I just wrote it down. " A mathematician supposedly once said,, "I thought of the theorem because it was right."

So is this sort of insight one of the things Poincare talks about or an I missing the boat?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact
  • #404
I've been reading Jagdish Mehra's "The Beat of a Different Drummer," a biography of Richard Feynman (1994, Clarendon Press). A colleague at work gave me his collection of books on Feynman, including a bound copy of the Feynman Lectures on Physics (1989 Ed. of the 1964 publication).

His early experiences in high school and university have similarities with mine. His insights in STEM education are interesting.

I've read other books written or coauthored by Feynman, and I have other biographies to read.
 
  • #405
lavinia said:
Very interesting. I am ignorant of the attempts to formalize reason. It will be interesting to learn about it.

In practice, mathematicians just see the truth somehow without deduction. It just hits them sort of the way a melody appears to a musician. Formal proof always seems to be an afterthought. I sat it on a topology course with Dennis Sullivan once, and he would call students to the board to demonstrate theorems. If the student started a logical deduction , he would yell out "That's not a proof!". He wanted the idea or the picture. That was the proof.

The composer Scriabin was asked how he had composed his fifth piano sonata. He said something like, 'I didn't compose it. I just wrote it down. " A mathematician supposedly once said,, "I thought of the theorem because it was right."

So is this sort of insight one of the things Poincare talks about or an I missing the boat?

Only in passing, there is however another famous French contemporary mathematician of Poincaré, namely Jacques Hadamard, who does delve deeper into exactly what you are describing. He does this in a short book called 'Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field'.

Poincaré also mentions these things, but it is not the main focus of what he explains in his book. The best way to describe what he does explain in this book is actually using the scientific method to validate and/or falsify certain specific hypotheses - i.e. popular ideas, philosophies and misconceptions that scientists and mathematicians (tend to) have - regarding the actual and ideal practice of mathematics and of mathematicians through actually practicing mathematics, analysing the results and comparing them with the hypotheses, and so discarding and creating new hypotheses if deemed necessary.

He also actually gives a general theory of how the practice of mathematics as a natural behavior in thinking creatures implicitly forms many aspects of mathematics (i.e. axioms and rules) which tend to be taken for granted and which tend to result in the development of certain branches of mathematics, in the form that we recognize them or otherwise.

Addendum: As an example, Poincaré's explanation of groups and their central importance in mathematics in the above manner is the best introduction to the subject I have ever read. It is exactly like reading an Insight article posted by the greatest mathematician of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes lavinia
<h2>1. What is the book about?</h2><p>The book I am currently reading is about the history and development of artificial intelligence.</p><h2>2. Who is the author?</h2><p>The author of the book is John Smith, a renowned computer scientist and AI expert.</p><h2>3. What inspired you to read this book?</h2><p>I have always been interested in the field of artificial intelligence and wanted to learn more about its origins and current advancements.</p><h2>4. What have you learned from the book so far?</h2><p>So far, I have learned about the early pioneers of AI and their contributions, as well as the different branches of AI and their applications.</p><h2>5. Would you recommend this book to others?</h2><p>Yes, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning about the history and current state of artificial intelligence.</p>

1. What is the book about?

The book I am currently reading is about the history and development of artificial intelligence.

2. Who is the author?

The author of the book is John Smith, a renowned computer scientist and AI expert.

3. What inspired you to read this book?

I have always been interested in the field of artificial intelligence and wanted to learn more about its origins and current advancements.

4. What have you learned from the book so far?

So far, I have learned about the early pioneers of AI and their contributions, as well as the different branches of AI and their applications.

5. Would you recommend this book to others?

Yes, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning about the history and current state of artificial intelligence.

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
627
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
884
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
811
Back
Top