出版社: Knopf
副标题: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
出版年: 201417
页数: 432
定价: GBP 30.00
装帧: Hardcover
ISBN: 9780307599803
内容简介 · · · · · ·
Max Tegmark leads us on an astonishing journey through past, present and future, and through the physics, astronomy and mathematics that are the foundation of his work, most particularly his hypothesis that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and his theory of the ultimate multiverse. In a dazzling combination of both popular and groundbreaking science, he not only...
Max Tegmark leads us on an astonishing journey through past, present and future, and through the physics, astronomy and mathematics that are the foundation of his work, most particularly his hypothesis that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and his theory of the ultimate multiverse. In a dazzling combination of both popular and groundbreaking science, he not only helps us grasp his often mindboggling theories, but he also shares with us some of the often surprising triumphs and disappointments that have shaped his life as a scientist. Fascinating from first to last—this is a book that has already prompted the attention and admiration of some of the most prominent scientists and mathematicians.
“Tegmark offers a fascinating exploration of multiverse theories, each one offering new ways to explain ‘quantum weirdness’ and other mysteries that have plagued physicists, culminating in the idea that our physical world is ‘a giant mathematical object’ shaped by geometry and symmetry. Tegmark’s writing is lucid, enthusiastic, and outright entertaining, a thoroughly accessible discussion leavened with anecdotes and the pure joy of a scientist at work.” —Publishers Weekly (starred review)
“Lively and lucid, the narrative invites general readers into debates over computer models for brain function, over scientific explanations of consciousness, and over prospects for finding advanced life in other galaxies. Though he reflects soberly on the perils of nuclear war and of hostile artificial intelligence, Tegmark concludes with a bracingly upbeat call for scientifically minded activists who recognize a rare opportunity to make our special planet a force for cosmic progress. An exhilarating adventure for bold readers.” —Bryce Cristensen, Booklist (starred review)
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.” —Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.” —Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.” —Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.” —Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.” —Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.” —Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues facetoface with him.” —Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other. With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes. The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.” —Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“A lucid, engaging account of the various manyuniverses theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.” —Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
作者简介 · · · · · ·
Max Tegmark is author or coauthor of more than two hundred technical papers, twelve of which have been cited more than five hundred times. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, and is a physics professor at MIT.
喜欢读"Our Mathematical Universe"的人也喜欢 · · · · · ·
Our Mathematical Universe的话题 · · · · · · ( 全部 条 )
Our Mathematical Universe的书评 · · · · · · ( 全部 1 条 )
Many Worlds or Many Words?
> 更多书评1篇

Probability, infinity & the measure problem in cosmology If we now take the limit where n approaches infinity, we get a welldefined answer that doesn't depend on n at all: exactly half of the numbers are even. This seems like a sensible answer, but infinities are treacherous: the fraction of the numbers that's even depends on the order in which we count them! ... Analogously, th... (2回应)
20141105 04:03
Probability, infinity & the measure problem in cosmology
Max Tegmark 09/2014 reddit Q&AIf we now take the limit where n approaches infinity, we get a welldefined answer that doesn't depend on n at all: exactly half of the numbers are even. This seems like a sensible answer, but infinities are treacherous: the fraction of the numbers that's even depends on the order in which we count them! ... Analogously, the fraction of all the infinitely many observers in spacetime who make a particular observation depends on the order in which you count them! We cosmologists use the term measure to refer to an observermoment ordering scheme, or, more generally, to a method for calculating probabilities from annoying infinities. ... I share Alex's concern. In fact, I view the measure problem as the greatest crisis in physics today. The way I see it, inflation has logically selfdestructed. As we saw in Chapter 5, we started taking inflation seriously because it made correct predictions: it predicted that typical observers should measure space around them to be flat rather than curved (the flatness problem); they should measure their cosmic microwavebackground temperature to be similar in all directions (the horizon problem); they should measure a power spectrum similar to what the WMAP satellite saw, etc. But then it predicted infinitely many observers measuring different things with probabilities depending on a measure that we don't know. Which in turn means that inflation, strictly speaking, isn't predicting anything at all about what typical observers should see. ... What's the measure problem telling us? Here's what I think: that there's a fundamentally flawed assumption at the very foundation of modern physics. ... Nobody knows for sure where the root of the problem lies: but I have my suspicions. Here's my prime suspect: infinity. ... So why are today's physicists and mathematicians so anamoured with infinity that it's almost never questioned? Basically, because infinity is an extremely convenient approximation, and we haven't discovered good alternatives.
2回应 20141105 04:03 
Finding SelfAwareness The neuroscientist Giulio Tononi has made an intriguing proposal for how to quantify the required interconnectedness, described in the publications by Koch and Tononi in the "Suggestions for Further Reading" section. The core idea is that for an information processing system to be conscious, it needs to be integrated into a unified whole that can't be decomposed...
20141105 03:50
Finding SelfAwarenessThe neuroscientist Giulio Tononi has made an intriguing proposal for how to quantify the required interconnectedness, described in the publications by Koch and Tononi in the "Suggestions for Further Reading" section. The core idea is that for an information processing system to be conscious, it needs to be integrated into a unified whole that can't be decomposed into nearly independent parts. (This is closely linked to socalled redundancy and errorcorrecting codes used in bar codes, hard drives, mobile telephony and other modern information technology: you use more bits than the minimum needed, which encode your information in a clever collective way such that none of your information is lost even if you lose any modest fraction of your bits. Our brain appears to use a similarly redundant architecture, since it doesn't seem to depend critically on any single neuron, and keeps functioning well even if a modest number of neurons die. Perhaps part of the reason that consciousness evolved is that such redundancy is evolutionarily useful.
回应 20141105 03:50 
相对而言，生物学界在这方面确实好一些（平均而言，生物学家在哲学观上比物理学家更有见解）。也难怪物理学界出不了达尔文这样的人物（总有物理控认为牛顿比达尔文“天才”，但个人认为达尔文的“天才“才是一种更微妙更深刻的聪明）。跟物理相关联的一些刻板印象绝对跟部分相当无趣的物理学家脱不开关系（尽管不乏有趣的物理学家）。 I find it amusing how strong the conformist herd mentality is among many physicists, g... (2回应)
20141103 00:55
相对而言，生物学界在这方面确实好一些（平均而言，生物学家在哲学观上比物理学家更有见解）。也难怪物理学界出不了达尔文这样的人物（总有物理控认为牛顿比达尔文“天才”，但个人认为达尔文的“天才“才是一种更微妙更深刻的聪明）。跟物理相关联的一些刻板印象绝对跟部分相当无趣的物理学家脱不开关系（尽管不乏有趣的物理学家）。
Mr. Hype v. Mr. Jekyll的类比很好玩I find it amusing how strong the conformist herd mentality is among many physicists, given that we all pay lip service to thinking outside the box and challenging authority. I'd become acutely aware of this sociological situation already back in grad school: for example, Einstein's revolutionary relativity theory never won the Nobel Prize, Einstein himself dismissed Friedmann's expandinguniverse theory, and Hugh Everett never even got a job in physics.
If you're interested in big philosophicalsounding questions, most physicists will treat you in much the same way as if you're captivated by computer games: what you do after work is your own business and won't be held against you as long as it doesn't distract you from your day job, and as long as you don't talk too much about it at work. So whenever authority figures asked what I worked on, I transformed into the respectable Dr.Jekyll and told them that I worked on mainstream topics in cosmology, such as those of Chapter 4, involving lots of measurements and numbers and blah blah blah. But secretly, when nobody was watching, I'd transform into the evil Mr.Hyde and do what I really wanted to do: pursue the ultimate nature of reality as in Chapter 6, 8 and most of the rest of this book.
2回应 20141103 00:55

Probability, infinity & the measure problem in cosmology If we now take the limit where n approaches infinity, we get a welldefined answer that doesn't depend on n at all: exactly half of the numbers are even. This seems like a sensible answer, but infinities are treacherous: the fraction of the numbers that's even depends on the order in which we count them! ... Analogously, th... (2回应)
20141105 04:03
Probability, infinity & the measure problem in cosmology
Max Tegmark 09/2014 reddit Q&AIf we now take the limit where n approaches infinity, we get a welldefined answer that doesn't depend on n at all: exactly half of the numbers are even. This seems like a sensible answer, but infinities are treacherous: the fraction of the numbers that's even depends on the order in which we count them! ... Analogously, the fraction of all the infinitely many observers in spacetime who make a particular observation depends on the order in which you count them! We cosmologists use the term measure to refer to an observermoment ordering scheme, or, more generally, to a method for calculating probabilities from annoying infinities. ... I share Alex's concern. In fact, I view the measure problem as the greatest crisis in physics today. The way I see it, inflation has logically selfdestructed. As we saw in Chapter 5, we started taking inflation seriously because it made correct predictions: it predicted that typical observers should measure space around them to be flat rather than curved (the flatness problem); they should measure their cosmic microwavebackground temperature to be similar in all directions (the horizon problem); they should measure a power spectrum similar to what the WMAP satellite saw, etc. But then it predicted infinitely many observers measuring different things with probabilities depending on a measure that we don't know. Which in turn means that inflation, strictly speaking, isn't predicting anything at all about what typical observers should see. ... What's the measure problem telling us? Here's what I think: that there's a fundamentally flawed assumption at the very foundation of modern physics. ... Nobody knows for sure where the root of the problem lies: but I have my suspicions. Here's my prime suspect: infinity. ... So why are today's physicists and mathematicians so anamoured with infinity that it's almost never questioned? Basically, because infinity is an extremely convenient approximation, and we haven't discovered good alternatives.
2回应 20141105 04:03 
Finding SelfAwareness The neuroscientist Giulio Tononi has made an intriguing proposal for how to quantify the required interconnectedness, described in the publications by Koch and Tononi in the "Suggestions for Further Reading" section. The core idea is that for an information processing system to be conscious, it needs to be integrated into a unified whole that can't be decomposed...
20141105 03:50
Finding SelfAwarenessThe neuroscientist Giulio Tononi has made an intriguing proposal for how to quantify the required interconnectedness, described in the publications by Koch and Tononi in the "Suggestions for Further Reading" section. The core idea is that for an information processing system to be conscious, it needs to be integrated into a unified whole that can't be decomposed into nearly independent parts. (This is closely linked to socalled redundancy and errorcorrecting codes used in bar codes, hard drives, mobile telephony and other modern information technology: you use more bits than the minimum needed, which encode your information in a clever collective way such that none of your information is lost even if you lose any modest fraction of your bits. Our brain appears to use a similarly redundant architecture, since it doesn't seem to depend critically on any single neuron, and keeps functioning well even if a modest number of neurons die. Perhaps part of the reason that consciousness evolved is that such redundancy is evolutionarily useful.
回应 20141105 03:50 
相对而言，生物学界在这方面确实好一些（平均而言，生物学家在哲学观上比物理学家更有见解）。也难怪物理学界出不了达尔文这样的人物（总有物理控认为牛顿比达尔文“天才”，但个人认为达尔文的“天才“才是一种更微妙更深刻的聪明）。跟物理相关联的一些刻板印象绝对跟部分相当无趣的物理学家脱不开关系（尽管不乏有趣的物理学家）。 I find it amusing how strong the conformist herd mentality is among many physicists, g... (2回应)
20141103 00:55
相对而言，生物学界在这方面确实好一些（平均而言，生物学家在哲学观上比物理学家更有见解）。也难怪物理学界出不了达尔文这样的人物（总有物理控认为牛顿比达尔文“天才”，但个人认为达尔文的“天才“才是一种更微妙更深刻的聪明）。跟物理相关联的一些刻板印象绝对跟部分相当无趣的物理学家脱不开关系（尽管不乏有趣的物理学家）。
Mr. Hype v. Mr. Jekyll的类比很好玩I find it amusing how strong the conformist herd mentality is among many physicists, given that we all pay lip service to thinking outside the box and challenging authority. I'd become acutely aware of this sociological situation already back in grad school: for example, Einstein's revolutionary relativity theory never won the Nobel Prize, Einstein himself dismissed Friedmann's expandinguniverse theory, and Hugh Everett never even got a job in physics.
If you're interested in big philosophicalsounding questions, most physicists will treat you in much the same way as if you're captivated by computer games: what you do after work is your own business and won't be held against you as long as it doesn't distract you from your day job, and as long as you don't talk too much about it at work. So whenever authority figures asked what I worked on, I transformed into the respectable Dr.Jekyll and told them that I worked on mainstream topics in cosmology, such as those of Chapter 4, involving lots of measurements and numbers and blah blah blah. But secretly, when nobody was watching, I'd transform into the evil Mr.Hyde and do what I really wanted to do: pursue the ultimate nature of reality as in Chapter 6, 8 and most of the rest of this book.
2回应 20141103 00:55

Probability, infinity & the measure problem in cosmology If we now take the limit where n approaches infinity, we get a welldefined answer that doesn't depend on n at all: exactly half of the numbers are even. This seems like a sensible answer, but infinities are treacherous: the fraction of the numbers that's even depends on the order in which we count them! ... Analogously, th... (2回应)
20141105 04:03
Probability, infinity & the measure problem in cosmology
Max Tegmark 09/2014 reddit Q&AIf we now take the limit where n approaches infinity, we get a welldefined answer that doesn't depend on n at all: exactly half of the numbers are even. This seems like a sensible answer, but infinities are treacherous: the fraction of the numbers that's even depends on the order in which we count them! ... Analogously, the fraction of all the infinitely many observers in spacetime who make a particular observation depends on the order in which you count them! We cosmologists use the term measure to refer to an observermoment ordering scheme, or, more generally, to a method for calculating probabilities from annoying infinities. ... I share Alex's concern. In fact, I view the measure problem as the greatest crisis in physics today. The way I see it, inflation has logically selfdestructed. As we saw in Chapter 5, we started taking inflation seriously because it made correct predictions: it predicted that typical observers should measure space around them to be flat rather than curved (the flatness problem); they should measure their cosmic microwavebackground temperature to be similar in all directions (the horizon problem); they should measure a power spectrum similar to what the WMAP satellite saw, etc. But then it predicted infinitely many observers measuring different things with probabilities depending on a measure that we don't know. Which in turn means that inflation, strictly speaking, isn't predicting anything at all about what typical observers should see. ... What's the measure problem telling us? Here's what I think: that there's a fundamentally flawed assumption at the very foundation of modern physics. ... Nobody knows for sure where the root of the problem lies: but I have my suspicions. Here's my prime suspect: infinity. ... So why are today's physicists and mathematicians so anamoured with infinity that it's almost never questioned? Basically, because infinity is an extremely convenient approximation, and we haven't discovered good alternatives.
2回应 20141105 04:03 
Finding SelfAwareness The neuroscientist Giulio Tononi has made an intriguing proposal for how to quantify the required interconnectedness, described in the publications by Koch and Tononi in the "Suggestions for Further Reading" section. The core idea is that for an information processing system to be conscious, it needs to be integrated into a unified whole that can't be decomposed...
20141105 03:50
Finding SelfAwarenessThe neuroscientist Giulio Tononi has made an intriguing proposal for how to quantify the required interconnectedness, described in the publications by Koch and Tononi in the "Suggestions for Further Reading" section. The core idea is that for an information processing system to be conscious, it needs to be integrated into a unified whole that can't be decomposed into nearly independent parts. (This is closely linked to socalled redundancy and errorcorrecting codes used in bar codes, hard drives, mobile telephony and other modern information technology: you use more bits than the minimum needed, which encode your information in a clever collective way such that none of your information is lost even if you lose any modest fraction of your bits. Our brain appears to use a similarly redundant architecture, since it doesn't seem to depend critically on any single neuron, and keeps functioning well even if a modest number of neurons die. Perhaps part of the reason that consciousness evolved is that such redundancy is evolutionarily useful.
回应 20141105 03:50 
相对而言，生物学界在这方面确实好一些（平均而言，生物学家在哲学观上比物理学家更有见解）。也难怪物理学界出不了达尔文这样的人物（总有物理控认为牛顿比达尔文“天才”，但个人认为达尔文的“天才“才是一种更微妙更深刻的聪明）。跟物理相关联的一些刻板印象绝对跟部分相当无趣的物理学家脱不开关系（尽管不乏有趣的物理学家）。 I find it amusing how strong the conformist herd mentality is among many physicists, g... (2回应)
20141103 00:55
相对而言，生物学界在这方面确实好一些（平均而言，生物学家在哲学观上比物理学家更有见解）。也难怪物理学界出不了达尔文这样的人物（总有物理控认为牛顿比达尔文“天才”，但个人认为达尔文的“天才“才是一种更微妙更深刻的聪明）。跟物理相关联的一些刻板印象绝对跟部分相当无趣的物理学家脱不开关系（尽管不乏有趣的物理学家）。
Mr. Hype v. Mr. Jekyll的类比很好玩I find it amusing how strong the conformist herd mentality is among many physicists, given that we all pay lip service to thinking outside the box and challenging authority. I'd become acutely aware of this sociological situation already back in grad school: for example, Einstein's revolutionary relativity theory never won the Nobel Prize, Einstein himself dismissed Friedmann's expandinguniverse theory, and Hugh Everett never even got a job in physics.
If you're interested in big philosophicalsounding questions, most physicists will treat you in much the same way as if you're captivated by computer games: what you do after work is your own business and won't be held against you as long as it doesn't distract you from your day job, and as long as you don't talk too much about it at work. So whenever authority figures asked what I worked on, I transformed into the respectable Dr.Jekyll and told them that I worked on mainstream topics in cosmology, such as those of Chapter 4, involving lots of measurements and numbers and blah blah blah. But secretly, when nobody was watching, I'd transform into the evil Mr.Hyde and do what I really wanted to do: pursue the ultimate nature of reality as in Chapter 6, 8 and most of the rest of this book.
2回应 20141103 00:55
这本书的其他版本 · · · · · · ( 全部2 )
 Vintage版 201523 / 3人读过
以下豆列推荐 · · · · · · ( 全部 )
 Not even wrong book review (clover)
 他人荐书 (lothar)
 Backreaction book reveiw (clover)
 耳阅录 (巴凡)
 高等物理 (忘川)
谁读这本书?
二手市场
订阅关于Our Mathematical Universe的评论:
feed: rss 2.0
1 有用 Dududu自己玩 20140309
次第介绍了各种多宇宙理论，作者把物理和哲学都讲得很透彻。阅读体验很好—阅读时心中的疑问作者几乎一定会在后文中阐述。对核心问题不故弄玄虚，不回避。
0 有用 273.15℃ 20140721
Multiverse propaganda
1 有用 Manchild 20150729
无法评价。
0 有用 Dowx 20150531
只看了前面讲宇宙学的部分。对多世界“理论”不感兴趣，后面部分弃
0 有用 AKE 20180424
看这评分就感觉踏实多了......不见得输给Aaroson的Quantum Computing，虽然他的评分高高地落在9分以上。
0 有用 老蓝 20181025
作者从自己的经历和认知，简单直白的阐述了他认知中的宇宙。
0 有用 AKE 20180424
看这评分就感觉踏实多了......不见得输给Aaroson的Quantum Computing，虽然他的评分高高地落在9分以上。
0 有用 April 20170707
https://book.douban.com/annotation/33493980/
0 有用 逆铭睡眼惺忪地 20150702
尤其到后面感觉像是一个科幻作家在dump各种脑洞设定 蛮好玩的
1 有用 Manchild 20150729
无法评价。