What do you think?
Rate this book
On Progress in Physics and Subjectivity Theory: An Amateur's Meanderings as Inspiration for Actual Physicists
350 pages, Paperback
Published January 25, 2024
1 person is currently reading
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 25, 2024
A generation ago, a Scientific American editor named John Horgan wrote a book, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. The present book, by a self-acknowledged amateur, extends Horgan's argument that science, particularly physics, is in some ways grinding to a near halt, but perhaps outdoes Horgan by offering its own idiosyncratic approach on what should be done about it.
First question: is physics really winding seriously down? In terms of universe-shattering reconceptualizations, compared to the first half of the 20th century, quite possibly so. We haven't had major revolutions like specific and general relativity, quantum machanics, and the formalization of the Standard Model. String theory hasn't panned out. On the other hand, much interesting work remains, as can be seen by scanning Wikipedia's impressive list of unsolved physics problems.
One of a good amateur's duties is to take swipes at experts and professionals, and this book's author, who insists his real name is not relevant, certainly does that. He calls for a radical change in practical scientific method under the name of Subjectivity Theory. It spends much of its abundant energy trying to tear down all kinds of assumptions about how to think and do. Much of it is clearly provisional or a work in progress, and some of it, for this reader, was hard to follow.
Along the way, however, the book maintains entertainment value by framing the discussion as a dialog between two people, Alice and Bobby. Bobby is the all-in radical, Alice the wry voice of reason. The conversations are skillfully dramatized. Sometimes one marvels at Alice's patience, but she hangs in there so the book stays lively and momentum is never lost.
My biggest disappointment is that Bobby's ultimate aim still leaves him firmly stuck in physics' labs and lecture rooms. I was hoping he'd prove more of an anti-physicalist / anti-reductionist. Part of the stagnation Bobby complains about probably relates to the outsize expectations many have that physics can give us the Theory of Everything. The annoyed amateur in me says we need to look outside of physics with its math-adorned femto-causations and start to appreciate the potential vastness of our ignorance, a vastness the science establishment would have us ignore so they, along with neoconservative economists and other planet-destroying boosters can remain our undisturbed priestly classes. But I fear I'd just rant and not find my Alice to keep me in line and sane. May I borrow this book's Alice?
First question: is physics really winding seriously down? In terms of universe-shattering reconceptualizations, compared to the first half of the 20th century, quite possibly so. We haven't had major revolutions like specific and general relativity, quantum machanics, and the formalization of the Standard Model. String theory hasn't panned out. On the other hand, much interesting work remains, as can be seen by scanning Wikipedia's impressive list of unsolved physics problems.
One of a good amateur's duties is to take swipes at experts and professionals, and this book's author, who insists his real name is not relevant, certainly does that. He calls for a radical change in practical scientific method under the name of Subjectivity Theory. It spends much of its abundant energy trying to tear down all kinds of assumptions about how to think and do. Much of it is clearly provisional or a work in progress, and some of it, for this reader, was hard to follow.
Along the way, however, the book maintains entertainment value by framing the discussion as a dialog between two people, Alice and Bobby. Bobby is the all-in radical, Alice the wry voice of reason. The conversations are skillfully dramatized. Sometimes one marvels at Alice's patience, but she hangs in there so the book stays lively and momentum is never lost.
My biggest disappointment is that Bobby's ultimate aim still leaves him firmly stuck in physics' labs and lecture rooms. I was hoping he'd prove more of an anti-physicalist / anti-reductionist. Part of the stagnation Bobby complains about probably relates to the outsize expectations many have that physics can give us the Theory of Everything. The annoyed amateur in me says we need to look outside of physics with its math-adorned femto-causations and start to appreciate the potential vastness of our ignorance, a vastness the science establishment would have us ignore so they, along with neoconservative economists and other planet-destroying boosters can remain our undisturbed priestly classes. But I fear I'd just rant and not find my Alice to keep me in line and sane. May I borrow this book's Alice?
May 2, 2024
Great Book
This is a great book on physics and science!
I found it quite advanced, but was quite interested in the content.
I am glad to have been able to give it a read!
If you are into physics or academic scientific writing, check this book out!
3.8/5
This is a great book on physics and science!
I found it quite advanced, but was quite interested in the content.
I am glad to have been able to give it a read!
If you are into physics or academic scientific writing, check this book out!
3.8/5
September 13, 2024
I approached this self-published book, sent to me kindly by the author, with caution. As I had suspected, trouble began early on. There is a 4 x 4 table in Chapter 1 whose rows and columns are labeled Object, Movement, Space, Time. The idea is to show that the four notions are inter-dependent. In some cases, actual theories and dates of discoveries are cited, but, at the bottom of the page, we read, "As for cell SO [Space-Object], which asserts that there can be no Space without Objects, several discoveries throughout the 20th century support this idea." The non-physicist reader is left hanging without any further details.
The book is composed of three numbered chapters, sandwiched between a preface and an afterword, ending with a glossary.
Chapter 1: Questioning Everything (pp. 1-28)
Chapter 2: Subjectivity Theory (pp. 29-89)
Chapter 3: Achieving Progress in Physics (pp. 90-302)
The entire book is written in the form of a conversation between A (Alice) and B (Bobby). This isn't unprecedented, as Galileo used the format in his 1632 Italian-language book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, comparing the Copernican system with the traditional Ptolemaic system, and Amazon is currently selling a book series, The Dialogues: Conversations about the Nature of the Universe.
We read on p. 8: "Let's take Newton's unification of gravity as an example. He realized that the force that keeps the planets in orbit is the same as the one pulling the apple to the ground. Before Newton's discovery, those two phenomena were regarded as entirely separate. While this new, unified theory is also wrong--remember, everything is wrong--it's less wrong as there is now only one wrong theory instead of two wrong theories. Making something up isn't good, but at least it's better than making two things up." With this logic, we are better off developing no theories, because then we'd have zero thing wrong!
By the way, the discussion above is reminiscent of a proposal I encountered when I was a graduate student. The suggestion was that a paper of m pages should be accepted and published only if it makes other papers of total length of at least m + 1 obsolete. The m-page paper is itself wrong and will be made obsolete by an even shorter paper in due course, thus reducing our worries about information explosion. Eventually, over many decades or centuries, we will arrive at a 1-page paper that contains the essence of all human knowledge, which is, of course, wrong!
An interesting feature of the book is a set of profiles covering the lives and work of 12 top physicists. Two-thirds of the parents of these physicists were middle-class (2 were poor; 2 were wealthy). They were equally divided between religious and non-religious. The number of their siblings was nearly uniformly distributed between 0 and 5.
Throughout, I took in the ideas with a huge grain of salt, as suggested by the author himself in a full-page graphic at the beginning of the book.
The book is composed of three numbered chapters, sandwiched between a preface and an afterword, ending with a glossary.
Chapter 1: Questioning Everything (pp. 1-28)
Chapter 2: Subjectivity Theory (pp. 29-89)
Chapter 3: Achieving Progress in Physics (pp. 90-302)
The entire book is written in the form of a conversation between A (Alice) and B (Bobby). This isn't unprecedented, as Galileo used the format in his 1632 Italian-language book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, comparing the Copernican system with the traditional Ptolemaic system, and Amazon is currently selling a book series, The Dialogues: Conversations about the Nature of the Universe.
We read on p. 8: "Let's take Newton's unification of gravity as an example. He realized that the force that keeps the planets in orbit is the same as the one pulling the apple to the ground. Before Newton's discovery, those two phenomena were regarded as entirely separate. While this new, unified theory is also wrong--remember, everything is wrong--it's less wrong as there is now only one wrong theory instead of two wrong theories. Making something up isn't good, but at least it's better than making two things up." With this logic, we are better off developing no theories, because then we'd have zero thing wrong!
By the way, the discussion above is reminiscent of a proposal I encountered when I was a graduate student. The suggestion was that a paper of m pages should be accepted and published only if it makes other papers of total length of at least m + 1 obsolete. The m-page paper is itself wrong and will be made obsolete by an even shorter paper in due course, thus reducing our worries about information explosion. Eventually, over many decades or centuries, we will arrive at a 1-page paper that contains the essence of all human knowledge, which is, of course, wrong!
An interesting feature of the book is a set of profiles covering the lives and work of 12 top physicists. Two-thirds of the parents of these physicists were middle-class (2 were poor; 2 were wealthy). They were equally divided between religious and non-religious. The number of their siblings was nearly uniformly distributed between 0 and 5.
Throughout, I took in the ideas with a huge grain of salt, as suggested by the author himself in a full-page graphic at the beginning of the book.
July 8, 2025
Hey Nick,
Yes, the tilda. Yes, the wave. Yes, I read it.
You trickster! You quantum F狐X with a penchant for paradox, you embedded me right into the dialogue. Me. Not metaphorically, not suggestively, but by name, mid-chapter, mid-conversation, like a ghost called out in a mirror. João in the Shell. And suddenly I'm not the reader anymore. I'm the interference pattern. I'm the particle measured. The mind-mirror stares back. Goosebumps, mate.
Guess you are doing this to every reader? Smart, as it fells like a...
Rift-valley-like shimmering slit in the curtain of consensus, a backdoor to the backstage of physics where assumptions fall like bad actors and the audience realizes they're in the play. It's a dialogic vortex, an MD-enhanced Socratic-Copernican séance performed by two cha(tbot)racters who casually toss Cheshire Cat into the blender with Schrödinger's cat and serve it back as a Alice in Wonderland and Twin Peak's Bob smoothie.
And yet it's charming. Disarming and naive. Like being mugged by a philosopher who offers you a fortune cookie. You came with humility "an amateur's meanderings". You, however, did something Hoffman doesn't: you invite the Stranger aka the Other aka the Dragon. And suddenly I'm debugging existence in real-time. The world isn't made of atoms [we can cut them anyway]. It's made of minds [we can't cut the one anyway, why even use plurals]. Or maybe just a really good rendering engine with lazy loading and sarcastic tooltips. If it's made in our image, it must crash all the time. I meant Donald D. He would do rather well, attempting to get into Laugh Tale. Albert was all about inviting dragons, and is likely already there.
Somewhere between your ban on infinity and the old Tao that telescopes are really microscopes into our own architecture, I stopped reading and started origami. Folding space, folding time, folding myself into the recursive Cronenbergesque spiral: that everything we call the desert of the real is a Halo Sin Nácion shared with just enough consistency to keep us from going Edvard Munch's. Been there, done that.
You wrote:
"We still need to use the tools at our disposal to describe the world. We cannot get out of that cage. However, it’s a valid approach to refute a concept using its own tools."
And then you built a conceptual jailbreak right in front of "me", i.e., any reader with a given name algorithmically inserted-into-the-dialogue.
In the end, this isn't a review. It's a late email reply.
You got me, Nick the Not Relevant.
You got me good.
J (aka the observer who observed himself being observed)
P.S. The link works now. And so does everything else.
[Riding the waves ~~~]
Yes, the tilda. Yes, the wave. Yes, I read it.
You trickster! You quantum F狐X with a penchant for paradox, you embedded me right into the dialogue. Me. Not metaphorically, not suggestively, but by name, mid-chapter, mid-conversation, like a ghost called out in a mirror. João in the Shell. And suddenly I'm not the reader anymore. I'm the interference pattern. I'm the particle measured. The mind-mirror stares back. Goosebumps, mate.
Guess you are doing this to every reader? Smart, as it fells like a...
Rift-valley-like shimmering slit in the curtain of consensus, a backdoor to the backstage of physics where assumptions fall like bad actors and the audience realizes they're in the play. It's a dialogic vortex, an MD-enhanced Socratic-Copernican séance performed by two cha(tbot)racters who casually toss Cheshire Cat into the blender with Schrödinger's cat and serve it back as a Alice in Wonderland and Twin Peak's Bob smoothie.
And yet it's charming. Disarming and naive. Like being mugged by a philosopher who offers you a fortune cookie. You came with humility "an amateur's meanderings". You, however, did something Hoffman doesn't: you invite the Stranger aka the Other aka the Dragon. And suddenly I'm debugging existence in real-time. The world isn't made of atoms [we can cut them anyway]. It's made of minds [we can't cut the one anyway, why even use plurals]. Or maybe just a really good rendering engine with lazy loading and sarcastic tooltips. If it's made in our image, it must crash all the time. I meant Donald D. He would do rather well, attempting to get into Laugh Tale. Albert was all about inviting dragons, and is likely already there.
Somewhere between your ban on infinity and the old Tao that telescopes are really microscopes into our own architecture, I stopped reading and started origami. Folding space, folding time, folding myself into the recursive Cronenbergesque spiral: that everything we call the desert of the real is a Halo Sin Nácion shared with just enough consistency to keep us from going Edvard Munch's. Been there, done that.
You wrote:
"We still need to use the tools at our disposal to describe the world. We cannot get out of that cage. However, it’s a valid approach to refute a concept using its own tools."
And then you built a conceptual jailbreak right in front of "me", i.e., any reader with a given name algorithmically inserted-into-the-dialogue.
In the end, this isn't a review. It's a late email reply.
You got me, Nick the Not Relevant.
You got me good.
J (aka the observer who observed himself being observed)
P.S. The link works now. And so does everything else.
[Riding the waves ~~~]
March 29, 2024
The author's main objective is to question the contemporary landscape of physics, while mixing the concept of Subjectivity theory. It is presented in a dialogue format that combines a touch of humor with profound philosophical inquiries, making for an engaging and thought-provoking read.
One of the book's most compelling aspects is its guided thought process that leads to the introduction of Subjectivity theory. This theory, reminiscent of monistic idealism yet interwoven with modern quantum mechanics principles, showcases the author's adeptness at synthesizing complex ideas in an accessible manner. The dialogue style, while a significant strength in facilitating a clear exposition of these concepts, occasionally leads to a sense of disorganization, particularly in the book's third part, where the narrative thread becomes harder to follow.
Despite these structural challenges, the book remains a delightful read, characterized by its fluid narrative and lighthearted tone. Le Vant's exploration into fostering creativity and innovation through varying mindsets is engaging, even though these insights are presented as personal opinions rather than empirically substantiated claims. Nevertheless, the inclusion of well-designed charts offers a visual summary of the theoretical discussions, adding an important layer of clarity and creativity to the work.
However, the theory at the heart of the book, while intriguing, appears to be in its nascent stages and lacks the depth one might hope for. This critique notwithstanding, the book is a testament to the value of amateur perspectives in the realm of scientific discourse, with Le Vant's accessible thought process and earnest inquiry serving as a bridge for readers to engage with complex theoretical ideas.
In conclusion, "On Progress in Physics and Subjectivity Theory" is an enriching read that could benefit from some structural refinement. Its greatest strength lies in its novel approach and the ease with which it invites readers into the world of theoretical physics and philosophy. While deeper exploration of Subjectivity theory and more robust empirical support for its practical suggestions would enhance the work, Le Vant's debut remains a commendable effort that enriches the dialogue around physics and the philosophy of science.
One of the book's most compelling aspects is its guided thought process that leads to the introduction of Subjectivity theory. This theory, reminiscent of monistic idealism yet interwoven with modern quantum mechanics principles, showcases the author's adeptness at synthesizing complex ideas in an accessible manner. The dialogue style, while a significant strength in facilitating a clear exposition of these concepts, occasionally leads to a sense of disorganization, particularly in the book's third part, where the narrative thread becomes harder to follow.
Despite these structural challenges, the book remains a delightful read, characterized by its fluid narrative and lighthearted tone. Le Vant's exploration into fostering creativity and innovation through varying mindsets is engaging, even though these insights are presented as personal opinions rather than empirically substantiated claims. Nevertheless, the inclusion of well-designed charts offers a visual summary of the theoretical discussions, adding an important layer of clarity and creativity to the work.
However, the theory at the heart of the book, while intriguing, appears to be in its nascent stages and lacks the depth one might hope for. This critique notwithstanding, the book is a testament to the value of amateur perspectives in the realm of scientific discourse, with Le Vant's accessible thought process and earnest inquiry serving as a bridge for readers to engage with complex theoretical ideas.
In conclusion, "On Progress in Physics and Subjectivity Theory" is an enriching read that could benefit from some structural refinement. Its greatest strength lies in its novel approach and the ease with which it invites readers into the world of theoretical physics and philosophy. While deeper exploration of Subjectivity theory and more robust empirical support for its practical suggestions would enhance the work, Le Vant's debut remains a commendable effort that enriches the dialogue around physics and the philosophy of science.
May 10, 2024
Physics feels like such a daunting subject and almost incomprehensible at times. What I truly appreciated about N. Otre Le Vant’s book is how accessible it is. Using a dialogue format to explain complicated subjects, I also appreciated the structure of the books, as he first aims to have the reader question everything as “all our current concepts of physics are flawed”, then introduces a new idea of “subjectivity theory” before then going on to challenge experts, establish credibility before lastly discussing how anyone could become the next big physicist.
The pacing is well done and even though he’s not an expert in physics, I appreciate his justifications about existing paradigms and how amateurs may provide other viewpoints. Through multiple very well-crafted diagrams and summaries, he presents famous physicists and achievements in physics in such a succinct manner. That alone made the book much more comprehensible.
Additionally, through the conversation, I very much resonated with “A” (as I am sure the reader is supposed to) and many times of confusion, I was reassured that I was meant to be confused/”A” was on the same page as me. There are a lot of humorous aspects and puns scattered throughout, and massive kudos to Outre Le Vant for creating a whole page for jokes (I’m referring to “The Nerdy Map of Nerdy Science Jokes”.
Towards the end, I will note that I became a little tired of clichés and how much the dialogue meandered, but maybe it’s based on how my mind thinks and it potentially got a little too theoretical. At the same time, it is interesting to note certain stereotypes:
• “You’re the average of your top 5 friends.”
• Einstein admitting “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”
At the end of the day, I appreciate the message that anyone can become the next “great” (even if modern society doesn’t focus on the individual) through the comparison of the top 12 physicists in varying categories.
P.S. I really resonated with this line: "I need change to fuel my creativity. Stagnation is regression"
I received a free ARC for an honest review
The pacing is well done and even though he’s not an expert in physics, I appreciate his justifications about existing paradigms and how amateurs may provide other viewpoints. Through multiple very well-crafted diagrams and summaries, he presents famous physicists and achievements in physics in such a succinct manner. That alone made the book much more comprehensible.
Additionally, through the conversation, I very much resonated with “A” (as I am sure the reader is supposed to) and many times of confusion, I was reassured that I was meant to be confused/”A” was on the same page as me. There are a lot of humorous aspects and puns scattered throughout, and massive kudos to Outre Le Vant for creating a whole page for jokes (I’m referring to “The Nerdy Map of Nerdy Science Jokes”.
Towards the end, I will note that I became a little tired of clichés and how much the dialogue meandered, but maybe it’s based on how my mind thinks and it potentially got a little too theoretical. At the same time, it is interesting to note certain stereotypes:
• “You’re the average of your top 5 friends.”
• Einstein admitting “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”
At the end of the day, I appreciate the message that anyone can become the next “great” (even if modern society doesn’t focus on the individual) through the comparison of the top 12 physicists in varying categories.
P.S. I really resonated with this line: "I need change to fuel my creativity. Stagnation is regression"
I received a free ARC for an honest review
March 29, 2024
Finally, someone offers a lucid explanation for the perplexing state of affairs regarding our comprehension of physics and the sluggish pace, or lack thereof, in its advancements. Let's be crystal clear: this elucidation stems from a non-physicist perspective, ensuring that every concept is thoroughly expounded and contextualized within the realms of everyday life and society.
Imagine this discourse as a dynamic exchange, weaving through questions, answers, acknowledging errors, and embellished with profound quotes from luminaries across ages. At times, we may veer off course, yet the narrative remains deeply engrossing, enlightening, and delightfully entertaining. The crux of our dialogue lies in the examination of fundamental concepts like matter, space, and time, fostering thought-provoking discussions and challenging reflections that envelop you in their intrigue.
Many eminent physicists have dared to question the accuracy of our understanding of physics. Over the past fifty years, the pace of breakthroughs and discoveries has languished in comparison. How then, can our society galvanize efforts to bolster education, secure funding, and ignite general interest in this paramount science?
The author meticulously observes human behavior in the genesis of novel ideas, delineating the perceived and genuine hazards of pioneering uncharted territories. They delve into the innate creativity of children, which often wanes with time, suggesting lessons to be gleaned and adaptations to be made.
Numerous organizations are reevaluating their missions, and this book undoubtedly enriches the discourse on what it takes to inspire the public or workforce. It serves as a beacon for individuals seeking to amplify their prowess and talents in this direction.
This tome is enriched with URL-linked sources and informative footnotes, meticulously buttressing its content.
Looking ahead, there's ample scope to delve into realms like Quantum Computing, AI, the enigmatic White Hole (ponder what lies beyond a black hole's event horizon?), and the indelible contributions of luminaries like John von Neumann. Society reaps bountifully from these advancements and discoveries, with AI potentially holding the key to future progress and the betterment of our planet and its inhabitants.
Allow me to leave you with some poignant quotes: Einstein wisely noted, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." His sentiment echoes in his reflection, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." And then there's his astute observation: “If I only had an hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only 5 minutes solving it." Charles Kettering, the venerable American inventor, concurs, asserting, “A problem well-stated is half-solved.”
Imagine this discourse as a dynamic exchange, weaving through questions, answers, acknowledging errors, and embellished with profound quotes from luminaries across ages. At times, we may veer off course, yet the narrative remains deeply engrossing, enlightening, and delightfully entertaining. The crux of our dialogue lies in the examination of fundamental concepts like matter, space, and time, fostering thought-provoking discussions and challenging reflections that envelop you in their intrigue.
Many eminent physicists have dared to question the accuracy of our understanding of physics. Over the past fifty years, the pace of breakthroughs and discoveries has languished in comparison. How then, can our society galvanize efforts to bolster education, secure funding, and ignite general interest in this paramount science?
The author meticulously observes human behavior in the genesis of novel ideas, delineating the perceived and genuine hazards of pioneering uncharted territories. They delve into the innate creativity of children, which often wanes with time, suggesting lessons to be gleaned and adaptations to be made.
Numerous organizations are reevaluating their missions, and this book undoubtedly enriches the discourse on what it takes to inspire the public or workforce. It serves as a beacon for individuals seeking to amplify their prowess and talents in this direction.
This tome is enriched with URL-linked sources and informative footnotes, meticulously buttressing its content.
Looking ahead, there's ample scope to delve into realms like Quantum Computing, AI, the enigmatic White Hole (ponder what lies beyond a black hole's event horizon?), and the indelible contributions of luminaries like John von Neumann. Society reaps bountifully from these advancements and discoveries, with AI potentially holding the key to future progress and the betterment of our planet and its inhabitants.
Allow me to leave you with some poignant quotes: Einstein wisely noted, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." His sentiment echoes in his reflection, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." And then there's his astute observation: “If I only had an hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only 5 minutes solving it." Charles Kettering, the venerable American inventor, concurs, asserting, “A problem well-stated is half-solved.”
March 20, 2024
This book is addressed to physicists by a well-informed author (whoever N.Otre le Vant is) who is not a physicist. The author does not seem to be a philosopher either, which many physics will find positive. I am a physicist and welcome this enthusiastic amateur’s contribution.
The message is that physics is stuck and needs a form a dynamic creative scepticism to get moving. This message is presented as dialogue between Alice and Bob. The stance of both is sceptical. Alice is sceptical about Bob’s claims and Bob is sceptical by method while generating many ideas. None of them are new in themselves but the dynamic generation and rejection is one of the main messages. In this it comes close to an informal exercise in Critical Rationalism (Popper is one of the few philosophers referenced) with a fair dose of Feyerabend’s “anything goes”. The fallibilist message that all theories are likely to be wrong is consistent with Popper’s philosophy.
Although addressed to physicists in general it will be difficult to motivate those who are still stuck in the “shut up and calculate” mindset, who would benefit most, to pick up this book. The book (especially the third part) provides a wide-ranging overview of issues in physics and innovation more generally. this could be interesting to a wider readership and the informal dialogue format should be attractive. The second part “Subjectivity Theory” is the least successful. The notion that “the world” is crated in the mind is not new and stronger cases have been made for it. However, it does not play a great in part 3.
“On Progress In Physics” handles the dialogue form in an entertaining and often informative way. Its pace would be improved through some editing. Even the dialogue itself says that some content is there to fill several pages.
The message is that physics is stuck and needs a form a dynamic creative scepticism to get moving. This message is presented as dialogue between Alice and Bob. The stance of both is sceptical. Alice is sceptical about Bob’s claims and Bob is sceptical by method while generating many ideas. None of them are new in themselves but the dynamic generation and rejection is one of the main messages. In this it comes close to an informal exercise in Critical Rationalism (Popper is one of the few philosophers referenced) with a fair dose of Feyerabend’s “anything goes”. The fallibilist message that all theories are likely to be wrong is consistent with Popper’s philosophy.
Although addressed to physicists in general it will be difficult to motivate those who are still stuck in the “shut up and calculate” mindset, who would benefit most, to pick up this book. The book (especially the third part) provides a wide-ranging overview of issues in physics and innovation more generally. this could be interesting to a wider readership and the informal dialogue format should be attractive. The second part “Subjectivity Theory” is the least successful. The notion that “the world” is crated in the mind is not new and stronger cases have been made for it. However, it does not play a great in part 3.
“On Progress In Physics” handles the dialogue form in an entertaining and often informative way. Its pace would be improved through some editing. Even the dialogue itself says that some content is there to fill several pages.
July 22, 2024
This concise little book on Progress in Physics and Subjectivity Theory reviews the most fundamental principles of our existence in a style and manner that is a credit to the author. Don't look for a sober, in-depth academic lecture on Einstein and Schrödinger or obscure topics such as space-time interpretation or ethics in physics; instead, what you'll find in this essay is an honest personal evaluation of questions most of us ask ourselves at one point or another in our lives.
I can't entirely agree with many of Le Vant's theories, but that's not the point. Besides demonstrating that the Socratic style of dialoguing is as effective today as it was two thousand years ago, what is a conversation, if not a civilized way to exchange ideas, evaluate different perspectives, and spend quality time reassessing our understanding of the world?
What I most unexpectedly retain from this short reading is that many of the pertinent questions discussed in the book kept floating in my mind for days, entertaining new dialogues with myself and the little voice in my head! This is a valuable gift in the busy world we created for ourselves that doesn't leave much space for meditation and thinking, which are, after all, the engines of our evolution.
As the author himself said: “The purpose [of this book] is to get your thinking going. If I achieved that, you can call me a happy man.” It makes this book worth keeping close by in your collection.
I can't entirely agree with many of Le Vant's theories, but that's not the point. Besides demonstrating that the Socratic style of dialoguing is as effective today as it was two thousand years ago, what is a conversation, if not a civilized way to exchange ideas, evaluate different perspectives, and spend quality time reassessing our understanding of the world?
What I most unexpectedly retain from this short reading is that many of the pertinent questions discussed in the book kept floating in my mind for days, entertaining new dialogues with myself and the little voice in my head! This is a valuable gift in the busy world we created for ourselves that doesn't leave much space for meditation and thinking, which are, after all, the engines of our evolution.
As the author himself said: “The purpose [of this book] is to get your thinking going. If I achieved that, you can call me a happy man.” It makes this book worth keeping close by in your collection.
July 18, 2024
This remarkable physics book offers a fresh and enlightening perspective on fundamental scientific concepts. Drawing inspiration from Platonic dialogues, the author masterfully weaves complex physics principles with diverse analogies, making abstruse ideas accessible to a wider audience. The work stands out for its interdisciplinary approach, incorporating references from various fields to illuminate physics concepts.
The author's pedagogical skill shines through in their ability to explain intricate topics with clarity and depth. Unique features like carefully crafted tables and profiles of physicists provide valuable historical context and insight into scientific thought processes. Even the footnotes offer a wealth of additional information.
What truly sets this book apart is the author's unconventional viewpoints and creative thinking, which challenge readers to approach physics from new angles. This work is not just informative but inspirational, making it an essential read for anyone seeking a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of physics. It represents a modest yet significant contribution to science education and the philosophy of physics.
The author's pedagogical skill shines through in their ability to explain intricate topics with clarity and depth. Unique features like carefully crafted tables and profiles of physicists provide valuable historical context and insight into scientific thought processes. Even the footnotes offer a wealth of additional information.
What truly sets this book apart is the author's unconventional viewpoints and creative thinking, which challenge readers to approach physics from new angles. This work is not just informative but inspirational, making it an essential read for anyone seeking a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of physics. It represents a modest yet significant contribution to science education and the philosophy of physics.
July 28, 2024
An open-minding book ! It starts by questioning the patterns that prevent progress in physics (and, I believe, overall science). We are encouraged to have a critical mindset, but in reality, the environment (education, research culture, student-professor dynamics, etc.) pushes for complacency and conformity. Very often, theories are presented as facts, and assumptions are rarely questioned.
We realize that students are filtered out, and in the end, creativity is lacking. The book also introduces the Theory of Subjectivity, which is very interesting and needs further investigation at the intersection of physics, neuroscience and math/statistics. The whole is presented in the form of a dialogue in an accessible and cheerful tone. I highly recommend reading it.
We realize that students are filtered out, and in the end, creativity is lacking. The book also introduces the Theory of Subjectivity, which is very interesting and needs further investigation at the intersection of physics, neuroscience and math/statistics. The whole is presented in the form of a dialogue in an accessible and cheerful tone. I highly recommend reading it.
July 16, 2024
It is a delight to read this book. It is written in dialogue form, which makes it very lively and easy reading. The author asks many questions that illuminate the subject from many different angles. Asking questions is often more importent than finding answers because this may lead to the deepest core of the subject. But the author also provides answers. He emphasizes that besides objectivity subjectivity and psychology also play a role in science, and he explores the consequences of this insight.
May 30, 2024
The book has some good ideas, but the format doesn't sit well with me. At the beginning it was interesting intro, even funny, yet I was hoping it changes. It didn't, the whole book is basically made up transcript. The main problem is, I think, it's hard to believe this would be real conversation. Regarding content itself, I feel it focuses too much on physicists and less on politics and humanity in general. I think the latter is more important for progress.
August 27, 2024
This book lays out subjectivity theory very effectively, in the form of a dialogue, which makes it even more accessible and easy-to-follow while still containing a wealth of ideas and discussions on physics and philosophy of science (along with some useful visuals).
There is a need for a new foundation for science and philosophy that can account for both the objective and subjective features of reality and consciousness, and this book is an excellent foray into this discussion.
There is a need for a new foundation for science and philosophy that can account for both the objective and subjective features of reality and consciousness, and this book is an excellent foray into this discussion.
July 17, 2024
A book that's both profound and an easy read. Written as a dialog between the author and a skeptical reader, it makes a case for the importance of subjective experience for physics (kind of wild, but plausible given how weird physics is anyway), and also offers advice for protecting and advancing one's own creativity. Some humor here and there also helps maintain reader interest.
August 7, 2024
On Progress in Physics is well written and in dialog form making it fun to read and very stimulating. If this is a field of interest to you, the book will be very rewarding. I'm a 'society' kind of guy so this was more a philosophic question for me and a source of provocation.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews