interesting theories, but that's all they are -- theories. I got this book after watching Charlie Rose interview Prof Randall and I'll admit that I found her attractive and interesting, so I wanted to see what she had to say. I think if I were a student at Harvard (an unlikely turn of events) I'd be more enthralled by looking at her than by her theories. Sure, that sounds sexist. But I don't find much use for her theorizing, other than as generic intellectual deconstruction. She's suggesting that what we see isn't what is. Basically she has taken the brothers Wachowski's premise of "The Matrix" and used it for physics. Semi-impressive.