The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World by David Deutsch (PDF)

Description

The New York Times bestseller: A provocative, imaginative exploration of the nature and progress of knowledge“Dazzling.” – Steven Pinker, The GuardianIn this groundbreaking book, award-winning physicist David Deutsch argues that explanations have a fundamental place in the universe—and that improving them is the basic regulating principle of all successful human endeavor. Taking us on a journey through every fundamental field of science, as well as the history of civilization, art, moral values, and the theory of political institutions, Deutsch tracks how we form new explanations and drop bad ones, explaining the conditions under which progress—which he argues is potentially boundless—can and cannot happen. Hugely ambitious and highly original, The Beginning of Infinity explores and establishes deep connections between the laws of nature, the human condition, knowledge, and the possibility for progress.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐In this book the author David Deutsch argues that there is no or can be no end to how far we can, or other sentient creatures, can go in furthering our explanations of the universe. This is our knowledge will continue to grow with out bounds. He explains why explanations are the key element in our gaining knowledge, and not the standard true justified belief of epistemology. He attempts to show how induction and empiricism fail to describe our knowledge acquisition. He believes science is practiced in the Popperian way of conjecture and critique. This is we first come up with an explanation and then we try to attempt to see if it holds up. And, this is the way we all gain knowledge, not just scientific knowledge. He believes that we create knowledge, and this is what separates us from other animals. He also looks forward to an optimistic future of continued problem solving. He has a chapter on Hilbert’s infinite hotel, the quantum multiverse, which he concludes is the only explanation of quantum goings-ons that currently works. He has several chapters on cultural evolution and the role of memes and creativity. His second to last chapter attacks sustainability, and why we should not be attracted to obtain it because it restricts ongoing knowledge acquisition. He believes we should seek unsustainable solutions because sustainability is stagnation, and in the end will fail, so are only choice is to continue to create newer and newer knowledge that will solve whatever current problems need addressing. In his final chapter he claims why we are only at the beginning of an infinity of knowledge. We are at the beginning because the enlightenment and scientific age is only two hundred years old, and a brighter and brighter future is ahead for humankind. And, there is no end to the knowledge we will obtain; that there will always be new knowledge to obtain.Here are some comments based on specific pieces of the text. Kindle locations are in brackets [][220] David Deutsch states: “The misconception that knowledge needs authority to be genuine or reliable dates back to antiquity, and it still prevails. To this day most courses in the philosophy of knowledge teach that knowledge is some form of justified, true, belief, where ‘justified’ means designated as true (or at least ‘probable’) by reference to some authoritative source or touchstone of knowledge.” (author’s italics) First, justification involves more than knowledge from some authority. It can be any form of evidence. He also leaves out true (i.e. aligns with the universe). It goes belief needs to be justified, and these beliefs only count as knowledge if the belief is actually true. In other words we must have some form of evidence, and it must be coherent with our other beliefs. In his terms we need an explanation in order to acquire a belief. But, for it to be considered knowledge under the standard form it also has to be true, not what some authority states as true. But, we often have to rely on secondhand knowledge. There is very little that we know from firsthand knowledge. Our knowledge may even require higher degrees of handedness.[1920] “Holists also often share with reductionists the mistaken belief that science can only (or should only) be reductive, and therefore they oppose much of science.” (author’s italics) I share Deutsch’s view on holists, but I call myself a reductionist because I hold out that science might indeed be successful in providing a complete reduction of science. He should also not argue against this belief because we have nothing to show it cannot be done with his optimism about what we can know. Having said this I also agree with him that different levels of explanation are possible. When we ask someone why they forgot to take out the trash, we do not want a reductive answer down to particles and forces.[3576] “Such an event [a gamma-ray blast in our galactic vicinity] is thousands of times rarer than an asteroid collision, but when it does finally happen we shall have no defense against it without a great deal more scientific knowledge and an enormous increase in our wealth.” (my italics) Wealth is one key ingredient that many (maybe all I have read) futurists ignore.[3713] “Yet there have been a few individuals who see obstacles as problems, and see problems as soluble.” I am mostly an optimist in my own life, where I do see problems as soluble. However, I do not hold out much hope that the world can solve all of its problems through science. Not that science may not be useful, but person to person issues, such as that involving religious disagreement do not seem likely to be solved anytime soon, no matter what science might discover. Having said this I do not hold it impossible. After all who would have thought the enlightenment (which Deustch thinks is so central in our advancement) would have occurred and would have had such an impact that it has had.[4351] In an imaginary dialogue Plato says in part: “Because they don’t want their kids to dare to question anything, so that they won’t ever think of changing anything.” Sounds like today’s fundamentalists, which Deustch may have been having a dig at here.[5566] “If a drug passes that test [saying they are happier], the issue of whether it really makes the patients happier, or merely altering their personality to have lower standards or something of the sort, is inaccessible to science until such time as there is a testable explanatory theory of what happiness is.” While I have issues with happiness studies too, does he really think people are so clueless when it comes to their own happiness.[6046] “They [voters] are choosing which experiments are to be attempted next, and (principally) which are to be abandoned because there is no longer a good explanation for why they are the best. The politicians, and their policies, are those experiments.” I began to wonder at this point if his explanation seeking was not just good old pragmatism and truth seeking here.[6082] “That gives all parties the incentives to find better explanations, or at least to convince more people of their existing ones, for if they fail they will be relegated to powerlessness at the next election.” I wish he would have provided some real voting examples to illustrated his political philosophy.[6469] “Arguments by analogy are fallacies. Almost any analogy between any two things contains a grain of truth, but one cannot tell what that is until one has an independent explanation for what is analogous to what, and why.” This was said in response to Marx’s use of biological evolution. However, the same could be lodge against meme theory, which Deutsch defends.Here is some more commentary on the book not link to any specific piece of text:(1) Deutsch’s major focus is to explain science and all knowledge acquisition as finding the best explanation. Under Karl Popper’s influence he sees that these explanations need to be testable. They need to be able to be discarded when they no longer provide the best explanation we can devise. And, they need to be narrow enough that to shade off to the side a little bit destroys it, and it needs to have reach—able to explain more than previous explanations. His reliance on Popper is problematic. For a good critical examination of Popper’s philosophy of science see Susan Haack’s Putting Philosophy to Work.(2) He argues against knowledge’s criteria—what counts as knowledge—as justified true belief. His main qualm is the use of evidence to justified an evidence claim. However, evidence is just one component to justification. The other is coherency—does it contradict other knowledge (i.e. how well does it fit in with other things we know already). See Haack’s Evidence and Inquiry for a good attempt to nail down what makes up or gives us knowledge. He seems to ignore the truth component. No matter how justified we our about our beliefs they have to jive with reality (this maybe all his testability comes to). He is correct that given this definition of what knowledge is that it is not unproblematic.(3) He also believes in conjunction with his focus on explanations that we have the capability to solve all problems we may encounter. And, this capability has no limit. He severely criticizes that there are limits to our growth as a human species. He basis this primarily on the fact that such predictions have all been wrong in the past (e.g. energy and resource depletion, environmental destruction). And, now possibly climate change (although, not as from the fashionable conservative debunkers). He calls the limits to growth sustainability arguments. His solution is not to purposely stop our growth, but to be optimistic that more solutions will be found in the future. The fact that such environmental predictions have failed in the past, does not necessarily imply that they will continue to fail, but neither does it show that these limits can ultimately be overcome.(4) He believes that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics is the currently the only option to explain quantum effects. This is that all possible outcomes occur; it is just that each one occurs in a different universe. At the same time he is critical of multiverse theories. In my mind neither version has the necessary experimental backup to show that either of them are true. But, because of his reliance on explanations carrying the load in science he believes the many-worlds interpretation is the best one we have at the moment.(5) I am not a fan of meme theory as he appears to be. The analogy with the gene as the unit of genetic inheritance is not as tight as it would need to be to make the meme’s use anything more than metaphor. Does this make the meme concept worthless? I do not believe so; it is just that caution is need until such time, if any, we have a bona fide theory of memes. See The Electric Meme by Robert Aunger for a good book on producing such a theory—its pluses and minuses.(6) Finally, he is a big proponent of quantum computing. However, I have a knowledgeable goodreads’ friend that thinks it is not the computing panacea for computational complexity that it is most often portrayed as in popular science works if I understood him right.I found the book to be interesting. However, at times it seemed to drag under the weight of repetition. While I have my qualms about all of his views displayed in the book, I would agree that pessimism about our future capabilities to continuing to grow are knowledge is more or less misplaced. And, while I would temper his optimism toward solving all of our problems now and in the future, there is not any good reason to throw up our hands and surrender. Solutions may indeed be found; there is no necessarily impossibility to solving all our problems with an advance in our knowledge.This would be a good book for those interested in a sort of nonstandard view on philosophy of science. If you do not like or have the capacity to entertain different views on what science is, where it leads to, and its ability as a problem solver, than I would not suggest this book.Note – hmtl commands marks of text that should be in italics.

⭐I have no science background (except college biology) and my own reading, so my understanding of The Beginning of Infinity is somewhat limited (particularly the chapter on the multiverse). But even with that limitation, I found this to be one of the best books I’ve read in years in terms of developing and pushing my own understanding of the world. I reread two chapters just to try to get some inkling of their meaning (the multiverse and the jump to universality). I also read the infinity chapter twice and on the second reading I finally got the point of the infinite hotel (or at least one point). Even after two reads though, with those chapters I still felt lost. I really need to reread them all, but this is my review with just one reading.Despite my ignorance, I still felt it worthwhile to write a review to encourage others who might think that this book is not for them to tackle it. It is worth the effort to comprehend even for those who are not versed in the sciences.This is what I understood from the book. Deutsch argues that we are at the “beginning” of the creation of good explanations about our world (the infinity of the title is the endless knowledge that humans have the potential to create). We will always be at the beginning (such is the nature of infinity I think–at least that’s what the infinite hotel suggested), and this leads to optimism about our world. Our world is filled with (overflowing with might be a better way to think of it because we don’t even really know where the world ends)problems and potential solutions. Through conjecture and criticism, humans “solve” many of these problems and this leads to new problems (solutions are not truths but they are the best explanations for the problem after much testing–and stand as objective truths, I think).D systematically builds his case, looking at other science approaches like empiricism or instrumentalism and shows why these are not good explanations. This is not an attack on alternative perspectives as much as it is the building of good explanations around the topics that are discussed (which range from beauty (D argues that beauty is objective), philosophy, psychology, elections, choices, creation and physics). There seems to be rhetorical room for disagreement, meaning that D posits his position, criticizes the other positions and then argues that his position currently stands up to available criticism. Again, the criticism isn’t an attack though; it’s how knowledge is created. D’s conjecture and refutation approach (to use Popper’s terms) seems to make so much more sense then the usual way arguments are presented: here is a claim, here is why you should believe my claim, because I have lots of support for my claim you, the reader, should agree I’m right. Even if you have 500 pages of support for your claim, one piece of criticism could refute it.What I found most beneficial to me was the emphasis on optimism. Humans are great creators, testers and explainers. That’s exciting. I still don’t understand how to apply the theories and truths discussed here to human behavior, however. Deutsch does mention psychology and its bad theories, but I’m not really talking about that. I’m wondering if humans can achieve all possibilities that do not defy the laws of physics,and does this mean things like balancing the budget? Or agreeing on good laws? How does the human ability to develop good explanations work in these instances? Deutsch (referencing Popper, who he references a lot)states that reforming politics is more a matter of setting up laws that allow us to get rid of bad rulers and bad laws (as opposed to trying to somehow fix the system to make sure only “good” politicians got elected, or good laws passed). Is the assumption that if those laws were in place than politicians would develop/accept good explanations for fear of being got rid of (or would we just end up overturning things over and over again? Now I’m prophesying which D condemns; what could we predict about human behavior? that is really the question . . . ). Do the principles raised in this book work with human behavior just as they do with physical and technical problems?Deutsch starts with some fundamental principles (lots more than the ones I’m listing but these are what stood out to me and that I remember):1. there is no authoritative way to knowledge2. Humans are unique; what makes us unique is our ability to criticize our ideas and to generate new ones3. The best knowledge for anything is a good explanation (we ask, is this the best explanation?). Good explanations are the ones that withstand heavy and sustained criticism4. All observation is theory driven5. evolution favors the genes that can spread through the population6. morality, beauty, abstract concepts exist objectively (through good explanations)7. the laws of physics determine mathematical principles8. The universe is not random; but determined by the laws of physics.9. prophecy is bad explanation; prediction from good explanation is better10. Humans are creative but we have to be open to our creativity in order to feed it (the enlightenment was the first large scale example of this). We have to recognize that problems exist, that people can solve them and that this is the best plan for humans.When I finished I had lots of questions. I don’t really get the concept of “fine tuning”, and I don’t understand the multiverse at all. I understand what the words say, but I can’t get my head around the idea of these multiple planes and people all existing simultaneously and then when he starts talking about the photons hitting the plate and going off I get really lost.Not sure I get the anthropic principle. I did go do more reading on it and what I understood it to mean was that human existence (that humans are here) puts limits on the explanations for our existence. I think D disagrees with this.A final wondering. . . Deutsch doesn’t really address emotions. Emotions, particularly fear, seem to power much human behavior (and certainly the stagnancy he discusses that kept us from moving forward with our creativity). In the rational world offered by this book, how do people “deal with” emotional resistance? Perhaps Deutsch would say that question isn’t really relevant. There are good explanations for why emotion overpowers reason (I think they are good, but maybe they aren’t–such as the part of our brains that powers emotions is much more powerful than that which powers reason), but such explanations do not help us to overcome this problem.

⭐David Deutsch’s eminently readable tract is a fundamental contribution to the theory of the Enlightenment. Deutsch’s book is the best, well-argued, crystal clear case for optimism about humanity’s future. Brimming with intriguing and counter-intuitive insights about the relationship between the growth of scientific knowledge, the cosmos and our prospects.Progress is potentially an infinite path and therefore, no matter how far we have enriched human lives, there will always be an infinite path of future improvement open to us. That’s worth repeating. No matter how magnificent humanity has become in the future, it has only just started. How refreshing is that compared to today’s shrill calls of anxiety and clamour for action based on the unexamined presumption that states have a magic wand solution? But we have to take those steps along that path. It’s up to us whether, for example, we invent better quantum computers or new sources of energy, or indeed use the inventions we already have, such as the thorium-reactor. Advance is not automatic.It is also our responsibility to refrain from tampering with the free competition of ideas, especially scientific theories. For all scientific progress depends on breaks with consensus, not its consolidation. If one day all scientists agreed that “science is settled”, science would die the same day. (Perhaps inadvertently, many have flouted that truth by restricting free speech.) It was this Darwinian-like, ruthless competition within science for new explanatory theories that are “hard-to-vary” that made possible our emergence from a merely self-perpetuating type of civilisation, typical of all past —and now extinct—civilisations.In publishing this book, David Deutsch has eased and made more secure our steps along the path of infinite progress.

⭐I heard David Deutsch speak in London about 30 years ago on Quantum Computing, and found the concept interesting, but at the end of the day, one of these things that hyper-intelligent academics like to play around with, speculatively, but clearly utterly impractical. Whoops.I loved this book. Parts of it — the sections on ethics and aesthetics –are, I think, more in the area of his personal preferences. But his explanations about issues in philosophy and especially philosophy of science (empiricism, induction, Karl Popper) are wonderfully clarifying. And I love his view about human progress and rationality, something we’re hearing too little of today.

⭐The “Beginning of Infinity” covers a wide range of topics such as the generation of knowledge, evolution, computer science, quantum mechanics, politics, sustainability, different types of cultures, geography, and much else. Yet each topic is linked together by the writer with a few extremely powerful concepts in an extremely original and thought provoking way.At times I felt that Deutsch pushes his arguments a little too far. For example, he disagrees with Jared Diamond’s assertion in Guns, Steel and Germs that the availability of resources such as wild animals that can be domesticated is the major determinant of how succesful a society will be, and claims that the ability to generate new knowledge is more important, without clearly explaning why some societies are better able to generate this knowledge. Deutsch’s argument reminded of the sterile “nature versus nuture” debate. In biology most now agree that environmental and genetic factors overlap and are both important, and it seems likely to me that environmental factors caused by geography are highly relevant to explain the difference between societies. For me this controversy added to rather than detracted from the book, by making it even more thought provoking.This is a very important book that should be on everyones must read list. After reading the book I found myself looking at familar topics in a new way. It is a long book, but well worth reading to the end.

⭐Not a review about the book. But the Order and Quality.Fake Copies being sold for 1100, I have returned my copy.

⭐The book is worthwhile and challenging, but not without flaws. The main premise is that human progress has been driven by the quest for good explanations, and the author makes his case by looking across a very wide range of endeavours and pursuits. Where he sticks to this task, many of the arguments are very powerful, and I found myself convinced, for example by chapters on `the evolution of creativity’ and `sustainability’. I should confess at this point that I had been hoping to read an update and broadening of the author’s earlier book, `The Fabric of Reality’, and the few chapters which might have fitted into such a work, I also found satisfying.However, the author ranges very broadly, and the chapters, hardly related to the main premise, had a generally negative impact on me. For example, he includes a chapter on choice concerning voting systems, which I thought irrelevant to the main thrust of the book, and uniquely for the author, it did not seem to have been thought through; he appears to put forward the argument prevalent before the Great Reform Act that it did not matter how MPs were chosen as long as they formed a body capable of weighing the matters before them. In addition, Professor Deutsch has given space to attacks on those who hold to different beliefs and philosophies to himself, such as empiricists, instrumentalists, and those of religious belief. I would be on his side in at least some of these cases, but the problem is that he is only able to make his views known forcefully, but cannot possibly present the fully developed arguments that characterise the rest of the book. The effect of what I have to call digressions, together with the 25 page dialogue with Socrates, is to make the book significantly longer than it might have been. To do justice to it, I found myself reading one or two chapters at a time so I read it over a time span of 3 weeks. As a result of this and what I found a slightly haphazard ordering of the chapters, I found myself referring back far more often than normal. I think that with tighter editing, the book could have been shortened by close to a third, reducing my problems significantly, and I really hope that this is done for some future edition.

Keywords

Free Download The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World in PDF format
The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World PDF Free Download
Download The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World 2011 PDF Free
The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World 2011 PDF Free Download
Download The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World PDF
Free Download Ebook The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World