The Beginning of Infinity By Deutsch David

by David Deutsch

The New York Times bestseller: A provocative, imaginative exploration of the nature and progress of knowledge"Dazzling." - Steven Pinker, The Guardian



In 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.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Physics, History, Psychology, Audiobook

496 pages, Library Binding

First published March 1, 2011

About the author

David Deutsch, FRS is a British physicist at the University of Oxford. He is a non-stipendiary Visiting Professor in the Department of Atomic and Laser Physics at the Centre for Quantum Computation (CQC) in the Clarendon Laboratory of the University of Oxford. He pioneered the field of quantum computation by being the first person to formulate a description for a quantum Turing machine, as well as specifying an algorithm designed to run on a quantum computer. He is also a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In his books, he also made philosophical contributions. In epistemology, he stressed the importance of explanation, and proposed 'hard to vary' as a criterion for good explanations. In memetics, he gave an account of how memes work, separating them into 'dynamic' or rational memes and 'static' or anti-rational memes. He also advocates optimism, potentially boundless progress, objective beauty in aesthetics, and reason.

Reviews

[Andy]

I am not sure that another book has influenced my thinking quite as much as The Beginning of Infinity.

As I read through Deutsch's many provocative assertions, I often reacted with instinctive scorn and disbelief. But with only a few exceptions, I found myself within a few pages not only persuaded but convinced of the utter obviousness of his ideas.

The specific assertions in this book are important not because of the claims they make relevant to that field, but because they are meta-assertions which empower every field, even when we have no idea what's coming.

[Gendou · Rating 1 out of 5]

Summary: Loose, philosophical rambling, plus an insightful take on Many Worlds.

Author's favorite word: parochial

I'm trying to be more positive in my reviews. Here are the good parts:
* Plausible story of the evolution of the technology of numerals.
* Refutation of anthropic reasoning for being a bad explanation.
* Introduction to infinite set theory using the idea of Infinity Hotel.
* Refutation of the Precautionary Principle for being pessimism.
* A clever, made-up tale of Socrates and Hermes on epistemology.
* Intro to Philosophy of empiricism, instrumentalism, realism, etc.
* Some nice anecdotes on the history and importance of the Enlightenment.
* Nice definition of a "good" theory: one that breaks if you change it.
* Definition of fungibility and its application in economics and physics.
* An novel description of Many Worlds which emphasizes fungibility.

Now, on to my gripes.

Gripe #1: Many Worlds
That last "good part" is actually an interesting and unique insight! In this interpretation of quantum mechanics, universes branch and merge. Branching is seen as an effect on one of an infinite number of fungible universes. This is equivalent to entanglement. Merging produces a number of possible histories, all of which are real. This is equivalent to measurement. Too bad only one half of one chapter was dedicated to exploring it! Notice that this does NOT solve the measurement problem. It is equivalent to the Copenhagen Interpretation in all predictions. The only novelty is in the explanation, which is all the author claims. So, it's fun to think about! But it does not refute the Copenhagen interpretation, as the author claims. He also dismisses the Copenhagen interpretation as bad philosophy. He calls it "instrumentalism, anthropocentrism, studied ambiguity". Ouch!s None of these accusations are valid, and are really quite insulting to the mainstream.

Gripe #2: No force of gravity in GR
The existence of a force of gravity is, astonishingly, denied by General Relativity. Actually, the classical force of gravity emerges from the curvature of spacetime. But instead of using these correct words, he assaults the sensible reader with hyperbole. Later on emergence is discussed, but too little too late.

Gripe #3: Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor is labeled as a "misconception" and rejected as a poor technique. But the "Occam's Razor" described by the author is not the one practiced in reality. According to the author, it isn't simplicity that makes for a good explanation. It is how hard the explanation is to very. This does NOT account for the situation where two explanations are equally hard to very! Only when this is the case does Occam's Razor come into play.

Gripe #4: Transmutation
The author doggedly refers to thermonuclear fusion as "transmutation". He also brings it up several times in early chapters as a non sequitur. That was really weird...

Gripe #5: Quantum Jumps
The author argues there are no such thing as quantum jumps, only smooth transition. This claim is not justified by evidence or theory. Atomic electron transitions or "quantum jumps" are an unmistakable part of quantum theory.

Gripe #5: Star Trek Transporter
The author gets us thinking about multiple universes with an anecdote from science fiction. Then, instead of moving on to talk about the real world, he keeps up the charade. Never does he actually justify any of his argument by comparing it to experiment. The whole chapter is veiled in a cloak of fiction, so as to defend against criticism. Once the veil is dropped, he's back to your basic Many Worlds interpretation, nothing more. So, why all the wasted time in fantasy land? I don't get it.

Gripe #6: Bohmian Mechanics
The author dismisses Bohmian Mechanics as nothing more than a flavor of Many Worlds. This is blatantly incorrect. Bohmian Mechanics is a non-local theory, where as locality is preserved in Many Worlds.

Gripe #7: Instrumentalism
The most brutalized viewpoint in the book is instrumentalism. He calls it a "bad philosophy of science" because it doesn't require explanation. Of course, this is false, because explanations are part of the instrument. The author uses the jibe "shut up and calculate", but that is bad instrumentalism! The good instrumentalist avoids the real vs. anti-real debate altogether. It seems that the author is objecting instrumentalism as an excuse for bad explanations. I agree that it is often used as an excuse, but that doesn't make it bad philosophy.

Gripe #8: Plasma
The author claims that most matter in the universe is the plasma found in stars. Actually, most of the matter in the universe is found in the intergalactic medium. This is also a plasma, but isn't (yet) part of a star!

Gripe #9: Reach of General Relativity
The author makes a big deal about the "reach" of a theory. He defines reach as the range of energies, distances, times, etc. where the theory works. General Relativity has a grand reach, but he claims its reach to be infinite. This is not true, because at the big bang and event horizon of black holes, it fails.

Gripe #10: Infinite Progress
The main thesis of the book is that progress is infinite. This is justified using an inductive argument: Since science has continued to produce new, better theories with greater reach, it will continue to do so indefinitely. But in the first chapter, the author claims inductivism to be bad philosophy, contradicting the argument for the book's thesis.
I agree with the author that we won't reach the end of science any time soon, if ever. But the whole point of the book is that the process necessarily is infinite, and I disagree. For one thing, all species have a finite lifetime, providing a necessary end to progress.

[BookHunter M ُH َM َD · Rating 2 out of 5]

لا يخطو الرجل فى نفس النهر مرتين
فلا النهر يظل نفس النهر
و لا الرجل نفس الرجل

أيوه يعنى ايه المطلوب و ايه معنى العنوان الغريب ده

بداية اللانهاية

اتقل شوية و احتمال تعرف بعد ما توصل لنص الكتاب

صبرنى يا رب


الكلام ده بيفكرك بحاجه :)



ماذا حدث ليتغيير العالم هذا التغير فى مائتى سنة كما لم يتغير فى الاف السنين قبل ذلك
بدا ان العالم لن يتطور ابدا و ظلت حالة الركود تلك لمئات السنين ثم بدأت نزعات نقدية لكل الأساطير المؤسسة لهذا الركود العلمى و الثقافى

كانت الثورة فلسفية نقدية قبل ان تكون علمية عندما حل الشك محل اليقين و رغم ذلك لم يكن هذا كافيا. فعند هدم سلطة ما لابد أن تحل مكانها سلطة جديدة. فإذا كانت السلطة الجديدة قمعية كسابقتها فلن يحدث تقدم أبدا.

نشأت من هنا سلطة التجربة بديله لسلطة الميثولوجيا أو الأساطير و كان شرطها الوحيد هو اطلاق سلطة العقل فى الافتراض و التجريب و الاستنتاج و التطبيق ثم توالت الأحداث بتسارع لم يستطيع ادراكه من تخلف عن فرضياته الأساسية التى تتمثل فى اطلاق النقد لما مضى من افكار و اطلاق الحرية للفكر العصرى النابع عن منطق أرضى لا شأن له بالغيبيات أيا كان مصدرها.

فكرتان شائعتان يفترض المؤلف خطأهما

الأولى ان الإنسان هو غثاء كيميائى فى كوكب عادى فى مجرة عادية فى الكون الواسع
الثانية هى أن المحيط الحيوى للإنسان هو صاحب الفضل فى وجوده و استمراره
لم اقتنع بحجج المؤلف فى دحض هاتان الفرضيتان

و كما يقول آينشتين: أنا و قلمى أذكى منى بلا قلمى.

ربما بعد ان نتمكن من بناء مستعمرات فضائية فى الكون الفسيح كما يتوقع الكاتب و يقول انها مسألة وقت ... أقول ربما ارانى راكبا الحافلة الفضائية مناديا السائق:

ايوه يا اسطى على ايدك هنا ... ايوه على اى جمب لو سمحت ... و انزل المحطة المدارية لأقابل صديقى القادم من المريخ للبحث عن عمل لنا فى كوكب زحل

يدخلنا الكاتب فى مقابلات منطقية بين فريقين

الفريق الذى يقول بوجود خالق او اكثر و الفريق الذى ينكر وجود خالق. و رغم انه ينتصر دائما للفريق الثانى الا ان قراءة الحجج المنطقية للفريقين هى متعة بحد ذاتها.

الحجة الاولى هى انه لا مخلوق بدون خالق و يرى انها تأكل نفسها بنفسها فلو طبقنا نفس المنطق على الخالق لاختل منطق الحجه و لعدنا من حيث بدأنا.
الحجة الثانية و هى الأقوى حجة التصميم الذكى للكون الذى به من الثوابت الكونية و القوانين الفيزيائية ما لو نقص احداها او زاد قدر انمله لاختل الكون و ما تواصلت الحياة او ما نشأت اصلا و يرد على ذلك بأنه رؤية ضيقة جدا للأحداث و يغير قليلا من الجملة لتصبح هكذا
اذا زادت الثوابت او نقصت قدر انمله لما نشأ الكون و لا تكونت حياة بالصورة التى نعرفها و لاتخذ الأمر مسار اخر مختلف
صراحة لم تقنعنى حجته و استدلالاته عليها فقد جاءت بفاصل طويل من الرغى الغير مثمر

إلى اللانهائية و ما بعدها



حتى منتصف الكتاب مش فاهم العنوان بيعبر عن ايه

الفصل السادس بعنوان القفزه نحو العمومية هو الأروع حتى الان حيث يبحث فى نشأة اللغة و الأرقام و الحسابات و من ثم الحاسبات

لا ازال اتذكر برنامج الكمبيوتر اليزا الذى ابهرنى فى منتصف التسعينات اذ كان يتجاوب مع محادثاتك و مجيبا على اسئلتك و سائلا اياك عن بعض تفاصيل كلامك و كأنه صديق قديم أو معالج نفسى رغم انه كان برنامج بدائى من برامج نظام تشغيل دوس. لم أكن أدرى وقتئذ أنه برنامج للذكاء الصناعى تم تصميمه فى بداية الستينات لاثبات ان الالات يمكنها ان تجارى الإنسان فى التفكير.

هو يؤمن تماما باللانهاية كما نؤمن نحن بالقيامة و البعث و الحساب و الجزاء
لن تقف أى حدود أمام الإنسان و سيكون هذا الكون بكل ما فيه طوع بنانه و هذا هو معنى بداية اللانهاية



المفتاح الأول للتقدم نحو اللانهاية هو النقد أما الثانى فهو التفاؤل


و هذا الفصل من أروع فصول الكتاب رغم انه فى الفلسفة الا انه مفهوم بشكل واضح


ان لم تصدق فكرة تعدد الأكوان كما وردت فى الكتاب فأنت لم تشاهد مسلسل الكبير قوى


و أخيرا لمن يسأل عن معنى بداية اللانهاية
انا لا اعرف معنى بداية اللانهايه
انا كنت فى الحمام ساعتها
و لكن إليك الخلاصة

تنمية الروح النقدية
تشجيع التغيير
التجريب الناتج عن الفكر و المنتهى باستنتاجات تمهد لتطبيقات عملية او مزيد من التجريب
البحث عن اللانهائية فى كل شىء

يعنى اى حاجه تجيب اخرها و تعصرها و تصبر معاها للآخر لحد ما تلاقى ��لهاش اخر

هذه هى بعض معانى اللانهاية فى الكتاب و يدعمها بالطبع الأمل فى غد افضل و اكثر قابلية لإدارة المخاطر و اكثر تأقلما مع هذا الكائن الذى يظن نفسه سيد الكون

[Liong · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book argues that there is no limit to what we can learn.

Humans can solve any problem with the right knowledge.

Real progress comes from understanding why things work.

We are always just at the beginning; knowledge is endless.

We learn by guessing ideas and fixing what’s wrong with them.

Open societies that welcome new ideas thrive more than those that resist change.

Our ability to explain things makes us incredibly important in the universe.

I loved the thought-provoking questions like “Who designed the designer?”

The Infinity Hotel paradox was absolutely mind-blowing.

“If you think you’ve understood quantum mechanics, then you don’t” 😅

A smart, hopeful read about human potential. 💡🧠✨

Not the easiest book to read, but it definitely made me feel smarter.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Can you give a book a one AND a four? This book has me split. I didn't really like it, but I did make it through and give myself credit for that (although I skipped the sections where he plays like Socrates...weird...how did his editor let that through?). And even though I didn't like it, it made me think in directions I hadn't gone before. That's worth a lot.

The author is prideful and arrogant and really rather strange, But he is good at explaining bizarro physics concepts that are on the surface defy logic and common sense.

I enjoyed reading some of his views. Others really annoyed me.

This is one of those books though that I don't know how much credit to give it because I have so little background here. The author does say that his view is a minority opinion, even among physicists. He doesn't really explain why so many people don't agree with him - just reiterates (fairly convincingly) that the way he is explaining things is the only way it all makes sense.

I stongly felt like I was getting only one side of the story. That if I heard the other side I might be equally convinced (because again, I know nothing here... I'm relying on "experts")

Worth reading. Add salt. Take the good and noodle on the rest. It might make good dinner conversation.

[Blair · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about rational optimism. For the past few hundred years in the West, science and logical thinking have been changing things for the better. The author believes we are just beginning an era of continual progress that has no bound.

His key idea is that science is defined by seeking explanations for the universal laws that govern reality. Explanations go beyond simply describing what we observe, or “instrumentalism”. A good explanation has “reach” – it explains not only what we see, but continues to work in situations we never anticipated. For example, Newton’s laws of motion explain both a falling object on Earth, and the orbits of the planets.

A poor explanation, such as “God did it”, could explain anything, and therefore explains nothing. Even if God exists, this statement does not explain how he did it, which is what is relevant for science. What Deutsch calls bad philosophy is not only a poor explanation, but it also sets up a system that is immune from criticism (such as “God’s will cannot be questioned”). This prevents anyone from challenging the philosophy.

The source of our theories is conjecture, which are then subjected to criticism. All theories are wrong, or at least incomplete. Criticism permits better explanations to emerge. This kind of error correction is critical to making any system work. Deutsch states that the prime moral imperative is to never suppress the means of criticism and error correction.

Deutsch examines William Paley’s argument in 1802 that life must have been designed. He shows this argument is profound, limited only what was not known at the time.

What is the difference between a stone and a watch? Paley may have thought the stone was created as is, while today we know that it has been through a complex process driven by the formation of the earth and plate tectonics. But that makes no difference. The watch was clearly not assembled by plate tectonics or any other natural process. If any small change is made to it, it ceases to function as before, while if the stone is broken in pieces, you have more stones. The design process for the watch involves stepwise refinement with the correction of errors that result in a functioning watch. The stone also went through a refinement process, but the fundamental difference is there was no error correction feedback. The watch cannot be properly understood without knowing its purpose. And if there is purpose, there must be intent, and therefore a designer.

A mouse has all the same attributes as a watch, so it was quite reasonable to conclude that it must be designed as well, therefore has a designer. And he is right. However, we now know the purpose of the mouse: to replicate its genes. The designer of the mouse is not a person; it is the stepwise process known as natural selection, with a system of error correction that removes mouse designs that fail to reproduce their genes.

These ideas are clearly central to the book, as can be seen by the watch the author is examining on the front cover. The watch and a good scientific explanation share the fact that small changes made to either will break them. Bad explanations and stones can be changed significantly, and they still function as they did before.
The author explores the concept of a universal system, which means a small digital system that can be used to create new things without itself being modified. Digital systems are required because they have built in error correction. Variations are rounded to the nearest decimal digit, whereas in analog systems the errors can accumulate. An example is the alphabet, which can generate any new word using the same letters, or ten digits that can generate any possible number. Language itself is a digital system. While we can make an infinite number of sounds, of which only a subset are used for our words. The first universal digital system was the genetic code, which somehow evolved from the original chemicals on the Earth. All of these systems had non-universal origins, and what he calls the “jump to universality” was a final stepwise refinement that had much more power than simply solving the intended problem. For example, for the first few billion years the DNA system only created bacteria. Much later we got multi-celled organisms, and in 1994 the first DNA computer was made, a possibility inherent in the original design of DNA.

The author’s field of expertise is quantum mechanics. He points out that while the equations of Heisenberg and Schrodinger describe the behavior of subatomic particles, there is no single explanation in words, or interpretation, that is universally accepted. He strongly objects to the majority Copenhagen interpretation that claims quantum mechanics cannot be understood, deriding it as “shut up and calculate”. He points out that “This combination of vagueness, immunity from criticism, and the prestige and perceived authority of fundamental physics opened the door to countless system of pseudo-science and quackery supposedly based on quantum theory.” His favored interpretation is many worlds, or the multiverse.

Deutsch develops an interesting argument against sustainability on “Spaceship Earth.” He points out that the biosphere is actually hostile to human life – just try living in a natural environment with no artificial help and see how long you last. Life is actually sustained by our knowledge of how to manipulate that hostile environment.

Sustainable has two conflicting meanings. One is to keep us alive, surely a good thing. The other meaning is to keep things the same. But static societies fail when unexpected changes occur, as they always do. Our survival depends upon the ability to adapt to change, which means the current mode of production should not be sustained. Hence the praise for unsustainability.

Paul Ehrlich was the ultimate resource pessimist. His fallacy is to compare the known inventory of present resources, extrapolated into the future, with the unknown possibility of finding new resources, or technical innovation that reduces the need for them. The predictions of this kind of pessimist tend to be very wrong.

After blasting environmentalists like Paul Ehrlich, he then addresses climate change. I was expecting him to dismiss the issue, but I forgot he warned against blind optimism, and realizes that problems are inevitable.

He clearly spells out the reality of climate change in line with the great majority of scientists. He also points out that predictions of economic consequences fail to take account of future innovation. He even uses the word “disaster”, but to him it equally means possible climate impacts, and the impact stopping progress to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He says that solutions that disable our ability to grow and innovate will not work. Prevention and delaying tactics are useful, but can be no more than a minor part of a viable strategy for the future. We need a large and vibrant research community, interested in explanation and problem solving. We need the wealth to fund it, and the technological capacity to implement what it discovers.

Deutsch defines wealth as the repertoire of physical transformations that one is capable of causing. I would like to point out that wealth spent on personal consumption while starving scientific research for needed funds will not contribute to the solution. In general, the problem with relying on scientific method to solve our problems is that we humans did not evolve to think that way. It takes great effort and training to think scientifically, and even scientists often forget it the moment they step out of their labs.

This book is full of challenging ideas. Some chapters are clearly written, while others were beyond my comprehension. Maybe if I read them a few more times I will get the point. However, my understanding of science has changed because of this book, and that is the highest praise I can think of.

[Henk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Far from perfect, and after two thirds much too overreaching, but forgiven for that since this book does offer a daring and fascinating view on what drives scientific progress
Optimism is, in the first instance, a way of explaining failure, not prophesying success. It says that there is no fundamental barrier, no law of nature or supernatural decree, preventing progress.

Mindblowing in reach, from physics, quantum mechanics, Greek philosophy, to (less successfully) art and politics. I would highly recommend anyone first to try out the authors one hour TED interview before diving into this book: https://www.ted.com/talks/the_ted_int...
Or one of his three TED talks: https://www.ted.com/speakers/david_de...

Physics, reality and the basis of scientific progress - brilliant and very well done
Is the world stranger than we can conceive? and What drives scientific progress? are key questions to David Deutsch. His theory is that explanations are bad when they can’t be tested or when components of an explanation are interchangeable. Anthropocentric thinking being a root cause for a lot of mythical thinking and “bad” explanations.
Sound explanations contribute to knowledge about the world, and knowledge leads to things being possible for small corporeal beings like ourselves that physical processes literally require the power of a star for (synthetic gold for instance) or a planet (synthetic diamonds).

Experience and empiricism in The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World are discredited. Deutsch argues that much of our theoretical knowledge is not rooted in experience, but are based on conjectures that are wholly and completely unexperienceable (like the warmth of the surface of the sun or the power of a black hole). And our most elaborate and complex knowledge, quantum theory, at first glance seems wholly counterintuitive and at odds with everyday observations and truisms. Truly accurate observation is in fact evermore indirect (e.g. through evermore complexer systems like telescopes), which I never thought about before this book.

Emergence as a concept is fascinatingly described as well, how in large quantities totally unremarkable units can form incredible complex structures, and life and intelligence. The author his critique on AI development is from that perspective interesting: Pretending to be better at thinking is not being better at thinking is a critique levelled against the Türing test and that chatbots seem to be a dead end in developing a true Artificial Intelligence, unsurmountable in the view of the author as long as we don't have any theory of what intelligence is. Also the writing on Qualia as an inherently unknownable experience is in this context very interesting.

Parochial as term is used so often by the author I kind of found it meaningless, and he is awfully sure about his case and his take on knowledge being the only sound theory. Transmute for nuclear fusion is another literary pet peeve of the writer, why not just use fusion or fuse?

Still the concepts are fascinating, one of the core questions being if there is a deeper, currently unknown but in essence knowable, structure underlying reality. Deutsch his view is that this is the case, and hence that a progress of knowledge through testing of hypothesis and conjectures is possible. That this progress of knowledge is infinite is an interesting aspect of this thought, since if reality is knowable, I would assume at some point it could be fully known and knowledge as such could not increase beyond that theoretical full understanding of the universe. I do understand (kind of) the multiverse theory because of this book and that is a massive achievement. And it also makes clear why I needed to do literature research and formulate hypothesis before I wrote my thesis, instead of just happily SPSS a dataset to bits.

Art, politics and everything else - overreaching abstractions bordering on the pedantic
I found the reflections on the nature of static versus dynamic societies, and why the scientific revolution occurred, fascinating. Also the author manages to incorporate Greek philosophy and then quantum theory in two chapters just after each other, with the Socrates dream chapter truly being at the same time incredible good, extremely meta and thought provoking.
The whole multiverse theory, explained by a Star Trek analogy was then again a bit vague and overly stretched in my view, and didn't illuminate me in any kind of comparable manner.

Till the chapters on politics and beauty I was fully in, but then the author manages to dead seriously ask Is art truly creative? What nerve, and an example of scientists taking an absolutist approach of using the template of their knowledge over far flung topics.
Like the whole idea that flowers being aesthetic being the evidence for a kind of normative absolute beauty is very tenuous in my view. Also the whole defence of the first past the post system over coalition form democracy is very much based on simplification of human interaction. Basically the assertion is: Good explanations to problems are discreet, hence political choices should be discreet and compromises are inferior, and a two party system with competing views and power to enact those views are superior to coalition governments. This is very much belied by the deadlock and polarisation in the US electoral system in my view.

Pedantic views seem ever more frequent the further we go in the book, with the author asserting, in a mirror of the "I say so" explanation he so fiercely is against, things as:
It’s not important
But as i shall explain
But that is not the explanation
Our society, the West, is not a static society.

I mean, I can get behind a definition like: Good political institutions are those that make it as easy as possible to detect whether a ruler or policy is a mistake, and to remove rulers or policies without violence when they are.
But his assessment of the Easter Island society being inferior was rather jarring and almost colonial in the final chapters. A good editor had significantly shortened these sections, and kept the focus more on the general views on knowledge and scientific progress.

Still a fascinating, propulsive and thought provoking read and 3.5 stars rounded up.

Quotes, interesting definitions and interesting assertions:
Any change is likely to be bad - As definition of pessimism

An idea being true makes it more useful to a broad group of people.

All evils are due to a lack of knowledge.

Imperceptible errors can’t be corrected.

Problems are inevitable.

Our world that is fundamentally comprehensible.

Explaining the world is controlling it.

We transform habitats to fit our needs, instead of adopt to our environment.

[Anastasia Hobbet · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Deutsch is brilliant, iconoclastic, and so sure of himself that it takes my breath away. No political correctness here! And no homage to that creaky old ideal of writing within your own speciality. But then he's a cosmologist, so what's not within his specialty?! Accordingly, this book is about absolutely everything. It includes critiques of contemporary science fiction, conversations between Socrates and his adherents, trips into intergalactic space, and a thorough discussion about the pros and cons of representative government--globally. You'll also spend some instructive time on Easter Island, where Deutsch manhandles the artistic reputation of the former residents. Nothing is sacred to Deutsch--least of all religion--except for the concept of human ingenuity. He sees the humankind as immortal--because we're thinkers and doers. We read and write and pass on critical, evolving knowledge from generation to generation. Our intelligence has what he calls 'reach,' and he sees us, eventually, as emigrants to other worlds: We will make the Enlightenment universal.

Mind-bending and wholly surprising from chapter to chapter. I will read this again soon.

[rmn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Who knew that the beginning of infinity was also the start of boring, I mean really, what a crappy way to have to spend infinity.

Anyway, this book is dryly written (despite what the back of the book jacket says) and confusingly uneven with some parts being informative and some being so incomprehensible that they would likely put somnambulists to sleep.

As far as I can tell, the author has a valid thesis which is that human intelligence can solve any problems we face as long as people remain open minded about their thought processes and put seeking truth ahead of everything else. This thirst for knowledge started or gained steam with the great awakening of the Renaissance and has grown exponentially since then. Only by keeping an open society and continuing to build upon past research and looking for best answers will humanity continue to develop and strive for this infinity of knowledge (hence we are at or near the beginning of infinity).

If that sounds interesting, add about 300 pages, 3 fewer jokes, some quantum mechanics including a discussion of the Many Worlds hypothesis, and an author with a bigger ego than the US national debt, and you have the Beginning of Infinty. That said, there are some interesting concepts in the book so don’t let me dissuade you if it is on your to read list as there is a really thoughtful and interesting book here, it just needs a more skilled writer.

[Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

I decided to move reviews requiring mathematical equations or images to LessWrong. My review of this book can be found here: Explanations as Hard to Vary Assertions.

[Stephie Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finished this book a month ago and at first I wasn't sure what I thought of it. But a month has gone by and I still think about it. In fact I think about it a lot.

Some other reviewer mentioned that his favorite word was "parochial" which made me laugh because it does seem to be true. And I finally had to look it up in the dictionary because he only gave a one sentence definition of "parochial" that I thought was lacking. And by that I mean I didn't understand it. I looked it up online. I wish I had done it more towards the beginning of the book instead of the end. I was wishfully thinking that I would understand it from context. Oh well.

There are entire chapters that seem a little pointless, some kind of rambling, and the multiverse chapter I gave up on half way through and skipped to the next chapter.

The first two or three chapters though... wow. The first two chapters were amazing. I will be re-reading them again until it really sinks in. The question of "how do we know what we know?" is tackled, in the sense of he ran at it full speed, tackled it, slammed into the ground and pummeled it. It was first rate stuff.

One part that stuck with me was the two plaques. "Problems are inevitable" and "all problems are soluble" has stuck with me. Setting arbitrary limits to the potential of human knowledge also really struck a chord with me. In fact over the last month I've found myself repeating ideas that I picked up in this book during conversations. I yelled "Don't set arbitrary limits to human knowledge!" over a beer at a bar the other night. It was all a bit pretentious. I might as well have been wearing a beret.

The parts at the end of the chapter, especially the "Meanings of infinity encountered in this chapter" and his definitions were kind of silly. At least it felt silly to me. In fact lots of it felt silly. And yet, I gave it five stars, because I haven't read a book in a long time that has stuck with me like this one has.

It is big, but not expensive. It is at times annoying, but so what. Actually that reminds me. Some reviews have complained about the manner in which the author seemed to discredit other ideas, theories, books and authors. But I liked it. To me it's like this: If you are right, and you can argue you right-ness, then why pussyfoot around it? If you have an argument to make then make it. If it is bad manners to say "You are wrong and this is why" then that is a problem with manners, as far as I'm concerned. If you think you are right, then say so, and then be prepared to back it up. This he did. There is nothing to be gained by starting each sentence with "With all due respect", etc.

For example, he ripped into a book which I haven't read, but I know a lot of people who have, and who consider it to be in their top ten. I won't say the name, but it rhymes with "Buns, Perms, and Peel" and boy oh boy David Deutsch did not pull any punches. But thing is, he doesn't just say "This idea is crap." He follows up with a wickedly good argument as to why the idea is crap. I won't be able to read Buns, Perms, and Feel now because the premise has already been set up, examined, and knocked-the-*&^%-out by Deutsch. It's sassy. I like it. I like some attitude. Deutsch has a brain on him and he comes out swinging. Those parts were actually my favorites.

As a whole, this book is equal parts flawed, silly, sassy, and downright brilliant. It is a gonzo combination. I wish more books were like this.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

Expanding on the philosophy of Karl Popper, The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is the definitive work of philosophy for the twenty-first century.

I suspect that on first exposure it may not be entirely clear what the underlying message and philosophy is. The structure of the book, the chapter headings, and the frequent digressions will cause some readers to either abandon the book or miss the point. But for those that stick with it, and really absorb the lessons, the philosophy is powerful. While no single review can do the content of this book justice, for what it’s worth, here are the main points I took away from the book.

In general, Deutsch is making the claim that knowledge and biological adaptation share a similar history of development (although they are much different in other important ways). In terms of biological adaptation, variation in genes results in different biological forms which are then selected via the process of natural selection. The information needed to assemble biological forms is contained within the genes.

Likewise, knowledge evolves by variation, in the form of conjectures or explanations, about some phenomenon, which are then selected via traditions of criticism and experimentation.

And so the process of variation and selection results in the evolution of both biological forms and knowledge. However, unlike biological evolution, knowledge is expressed in the form of explanations that have potentially infinite reach. For example, the theory of gravity is an explanation that can provide information about the farthest reaches of the universe despite the fact that we’ve never travelled there.

Variation, in the form of conjectures, generates different explanations that can then be criticized and tested. But it’s only through a tradition of criticism and testing that knowledge can evolve to become more refined. And this fact explains the explosion of knowledge we’ve witness over the last 400 or so years since the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment, which included the scientific revolution, was characterized by a rejection of authority, dogma, and any system of belief that insulated itself against criticism and change. This insulation against criticism and change characterizes all failed societies and systems of thought.

The new scientific sensibility, in contrast, took nothing for granted, and even treated its own theories as provisional, or subject to change in the face of new evidence or better explanatory theories.

In this way, all knowledge is treated as conjecture, subject to the selection process of criticism and testing, allowing knowledge to grow and expand infinitely.

In the process, we’ve come to discover the criteria for good explanations. The nature of our reason is that we can never know anything with complete certainty; our knowledge, as a result, must be probabilistic. But within that constraint we can develop explanations that are increasingly accurate and precise.

Accuracy and precision are important standards in our evaluation of explanations; standards that are absent in bad explanations. For example, using creationism to explain biological adaptation is a bad explanation because to say that “God designed life” is really not explaining anything at all. It says nothing of the the nature of God, how God came into existence itself, and why specific adaptations were designed to the exclusion of others.

More importantly, in bad explanations the details are easy to vary. The creationist, faced with any specific example of poor design in our own biology, can simply make up an explanation for its existence or make the claim that God is infinitely wiser than us, so that there must be a reason.

This is the mark of a bad explanation: one that can never be wrong regardless of any new thought, criticism, discovery, evidence or testing procedure. Evolution, in contrast, represents a good explanation because it not only fits the evidence but the details are hard to vary. This means that evolution could be disproven by finding a fossil out of place, or by showing a biological adaptation that spontaneously generated without ancestral precursors.

Within this entire epistemology is the concept of fallibilism, the importance of theory, and the importance of a system of criticism.

Fallibilism is the principle that all of our theories, both scientific and based on common sense, are subject to varying degrees of doubt and so can never be conclusively proven. Even formal systems such as mathematics and logic cannot prove their own axioms from within their own systems and must rely on outside sources, ad infinitum.

Every argument includes premises in support of a conclusion, but the premises themselves are left unargued. If those premises are then supported with further argument, then the premises for that argument are left unsupported.

This results in an infinite regress and a permanent state of doubt, and the deeper our explanations go, the more questions arise. This is why problems are inevitable. But problems are also soluble, even if our knowledge is only probable. We can solve problems as they arise, but—and here’s another key point—we can’t know which problems are soluble before we solve them.

That’s why premature cognitive closure is the antithesis to Deutsch’s theory; the resignation of problems as unsolvable, or of existing belief as certain, prevents the possibility of knowledge growth. Perhaps some problems are unsolvable, but since we don’t know which will be solved ahead of time, we must of practical necessity assume that they are.

This will lead to the development of explanatory theories (variation), which can then be criticized and tested (selection). The theories that withstand the testing become the currently best explanations. And so a kind of evolutionary process is occurring within the mind.

Theory and abstract explanations always proceed testing, as gene variation always precedes natural selection. That is because experimental data always needs to filtered and assessed according to some theory. The idea of empiricism, that observational data just spontaneously assembles itself into theory and knowledge, is patently false. Newton’s laws of universal motion, for example, cannot be derived simply from observing objects in motion. It is an explanatory theory that can be tested, but must be a theory first.

This, in essence, is what I take to be the underlying philosophy of the book. It is a philosophy that replaces the search for certainty with the search for better explanations and unbounded growth in knowledge, which is a philosophy that can help humankind transition, once and for all, out of the dark ages.

[Nabeel Hassan · Rating 2 out of 5]

كتاب يطرح الكثير من الأفكار الفيزيائية و العلمية و الفلسفية، يطرح فكرة اللانهاية عن طريق نقض الكثير من النظريات التي تروج لعكس المعنى و يحاول أن يفسر سبب ردائة النظرية بطريقته الخاصة.
أسهب في شرح فندق اللانهاية الذي يراها تفسير غير جيد، تبحث في التفائل و التشائم في المواضيع نفسها و ذكر تاريخ علمي للكثير من النظريات و كيف كان تأثير التفسيرات الجيدة و غير الجيدة.
كتاب لربما يراه الكثير بأنه خيالي أكثر من واقعي و مع أن الكاتب ينتقد التفائل المفرط و لكني أراه متفائل جداً في أمور مازلت غامضة مثل الذكاء الصناعي و الخلود للبشر التي يراها بأنها ممكن، لربما الأشخاص العلميين يرونه تفائل جيد و لكني أراه ليس فقط تفائل جيد بل خيال علمي لا أكثر.
تطرق كذلك لفكرة الإبداع و حاول أن يوظفها لأثبات فكرته التي أراها غامضة في كل الفصول، و لكنه طرح بعض الأمور التي يمكن لأبسط الناس الإستفادة منها.
فصل حلم سقراط كان فصل جميل حيث بين نظرية سقراط في المعرفة على شكل حلم و مداخلات مع أصحابه.

[Chaunceton Bird · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an entertaining explanation of human progress. It was a bit disjointed, but that's just because there are a lot of ideas presented that are only related in that they contribute to humanity's march into infinity.

[Nick Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

fascinating, but not everything i was hoping for. i'm surprised to see this book being used as one of the required texts for scott aaronson's 6.893 Philosophy and Theoretical Computer Science this fall, a course which i would happily give up either testicle to attend. seriously, stop reading whatever crap you're reading and go through that reading list. it's a who's who of everything that matters.
---
picked it up today. can't wait.
---
Dr. Deutsch wrote one hell of a PhD dissertation back in the day; I look forward to reading his book. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=690

[Ed van der Winden · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot stress the importance of this book enough. This book is about the power and potential of explanations and therefore also of our potential as a species, as the people who are able to create these explanations. Deutsh's book is an incredibly lucid and powerful explanation in itself and I will even go as far as to conclude that with this book Deutsch has become the most important philosopher of our time!
Do yourself a favor and read this book! Deutsch's book is not technical and understandable by anyone with a decent brain. That includes you, otherwise you would not be reading this review. The book's arguments are as rational as they are optimistic (in every sense of the word, including the definition in the book itself).
This is the kind of thinking that empowers us both as individuals and as a species. MARVELLOUS!

[Lance L · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book seems like a clinic in logical fallacies. Every chapter is peppered with straw man attacks on rival scientists, false syllogisms, false analogies, and head-slapping non sequiturs. Argument against the Virtual Reality hypothesis: I believe that reality is knowable. In a virtual reality scenario, there would be no access to the underlying reality, so it wouldn't be knowable. So it can't be. For those keeping score, that's begging the question AND a false syllogism. The pages are just littered with such sloppiness. Which truly makes me wonder because I have great respect for the author and his work. This book was just not well-argued or rigorous or really even comprehensible at times (as could be said of this review - the author rambles off onto tangents and never finds his way back to the point). Extremely disappointing.

[Max Nova · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" is one of the more thought-provoking books I've read in the past few years. Its scope is incredibly broad - from epistemology and quantum fungibility to environmental ethics and societal evolution. Deutsch is a physicist (of self-admittedly fringe beliefs in regards to some quantum theory) and I'm always a bit skeptical when subject-matter experts try to extrapolate outside of their areas of speciality - particularly when they do so on as massive a scale as Deutsch does in this book. And "quantum" anything always puts me on high alert.

Yet I found much of the book to be very compelling. Deutsch takes a deep dive into the nature of knowledge and human understanding, raising a profound question: is there a limit to what can be understood? Deutsch claims that no, our understanding is always at the "beginning of infinity" and there will always be an infinite amount more left to understand. If true, this has deep implications for how we organize society and how we think about life. I'm reminded of Shelly Kagan's claim in his "Death" Open Yale Course that we should hope there is no life after death because there is a finite amount of stuff to do and infinite heaven is actually infinite repetitive hell. Deutsch would disagree. I need to go back and re-read this book to really follow his reasoning though - it was a bit subtle.

Another important claim Deutsch makes is that there is only one type of knowledge (that defined by rationality). Again, I'd have to re-read to really understand his logic, but the implications are equally profound. For example, Deutsch says that we should not fear the Singularity because an Artificial Intelligence is no different than human intelligence. We are both "universal explainers" and there is nothing that an AI could understand that humans could not. This position rings much truer to me than Bostrom's in his Superintelligence book.

One of the major distinctions that Deutsch draws is that between "static"/"sustainable"/"precautionary" and "dynamic" societies. Static societies are those which adhere rigidly to traditional values and suppress creativity to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, dynamic societies encourage an atmosphere of creativity and criticism which leads to ongoing scientific progress and represents a "beginning of infinity." Deutsch is very pro-Westernization and is unabashedly critical of what he views as the repressive and miserable conditions of life in non-Western "static" societies.

In that vein - Deutsch makes some very interesting comments about his environmental ethic. He sets up Jared Diamond (the Guns, Germs, and Steel guy) as his opposition. Diamond claims that the Easter Island civilization collapsed because of poor environmental management and the deforestation of their island. Deutsch agrees that that may have been the proximate cause of their demise, but that's like saying that "Caesar died because of improper iron management" when he got stabbed. Deutsch says that the real reason that Easter Island collapsed was because they were a static society that was unable to solve existential problems when they came up. Had they simply had the knowledge needed to reforest their island or make ocean-going voyages to relocate, their society would have survived. I've always had a tough time stomaching Diamond, and Deutsch puts his finger on the exact reason why. One of Deutsch's observations that I really liked was that with the correct knowledge, anything is possible unless it is prohibited by the laws of physics. In our own time, Deutsch recommends that we realize that there is no such thing as "sustainability." Things are sustainable until they're not. There will always be problems and we will always need to come up with new solutions.

Incidentally, Deutsch also claims that we shouldn't worry about alien invasions either. If an alien civilization was advanced enough to build spaceships to reach our planet, we would likely understand each other very well because we would share much of the same knowledge (because there is only one type of knowledge). Furthermore, they would clearly be smart enough to teach us how to understand them and their technology (after all, they educate their own young). And there would be no need to mine the Earth for resources or any other classic sci-fi trope - the universe is so large that they could easily afford to leave us alone.

Overall, this book forced me to think about a lot of different areas of life and the universe from a highly rational and integrating perspective. Still trying to figure out what I actually believe from this book... probably worth a re-read at some point in the future.

Full review with highlights here: http://books.max-nova.com/the-beginning-of-infinity/

[Victor Torvich · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is HIGHLY ONE-SIDED.
David Deutsch stated, "This knowledge consists of explanations: assertions about what is out there beyond the appearances and how it behaves." "The principal of optimism - All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge." Basically, David Deutsch's view is that sufficient knowledge can solve any problem.

Such a view is one-sided because David Deutsch does not mention what happens with the acquired knowledge - Is anything done with knowledge, or is that knowledge just sitting on a shelf as some static entity? Who or what are judges about knowledge? How do we or somebody else find out if that knowledge is sufficient or not sufficient? Sufficient regarding what? If someone or something is using knowledge, then who are the beneficiaries of that usage, and is it possible that there are some victims, not beneficiaries, of the usage of the knowledge? Just look at examples of how different groups used available expertise in humankind's long, bloody history. For example, The Inquisition had knowledge of torture and bonfires. The Inquisition used this knowledge to torture and burn people alive.

The answers to such questions can be skipped in an idealized, theoretically imagined world. But those answers are necessary in the real world. Without such answers, it is hard to subscribe to David Deutsch's optimism.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very interesting introduction to modern research in computational complexity and its often intriguing applications to physics, cosmology and even philosophy.

The part that struck me the most was his chapter on "Optimism". He argues that we are in the midst of an explosion of scientific knowledge and technology that may well continue for many years into the future, yielding a world that is far more advanced than anything we can imagine at the present time. He then argues further that there is no fundamental barrier to this progress. Here is an excerpt form pg. 212:

Optimism is, in the first instance, a way of explaining failure, not prophesying success. It says that there is no fundamental barrier, no law of nature or supernatural decree, preventing progress. Whenever we try to improve things and fail, it is not because the spiteful (or unfathomable benevolent) gods are thwarting us or punishing us for trying, or because we have reached a limit on the capacity of reason to make improvements, or because it is best that we fail, but always because we did n to know enough, in time. but optimism is also a stance towards the future, because nearly all failures, and nearly all successes, are yet to come.

Highly recommended.

[Tom Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most interesting non-fiction books I've read. Science and philosophy of science. Second read.

Friends, on the first Tuesday of the month I send out a short newsletter with updates on my novel-in-progress, a glimpse of one writer's life in small-town coastal Tofino, and a link to the month's free eBooks of various authors. It’s my privilege to stay connected to those who appreciate my work. If interested, and to receive a free copy of the award winning Immortal North, please sign up here: www.luckydollarmedia.com

[Danielle Morrill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes! This is a dense but worthwhile read. Understanding the root of dynamic versus static culture is crucial, and the closing refutation of Nick Bostrom's argument for simulations is so elegant. Worth putting on your shelf and working through slowly, and possibly the best inspiration for my fiction writing in some time.

[Nelson Zagalo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um rasgo de inteligência em estado puro, é o que posso dizer sobre a leitura das palavras de David Deutsch em “The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations that Transform the World”. A ciência, ou melhor, o pensamento científico elevado ao cume da experiência humana, explanado de uma forma simples e acessível e ao mesmo tempo capaz de ir ao fundo de tudo aquilo que somos enquanto seres humanos, mais, de tudo aquilo que poderemos vir a ser. É um livro com uma mensagem poderosamente otimista, capaz de evocar e incitar o melhor que existe no ser humano. Um livro ao nível de “Cosmos” de Carl Sagan, não só atual mas muito mais ambicioso, sem contudo perder nada do sonho que tornou Sagan tão fascinante. Deutsch é um prodígio da consciência humana.

“This is Earth. Not the eternal and only home of mankind, but only a starting point of an infinite adventure. All you need do is make the decision [to end your static society]. It is yours to make (..) [With that decision] came the end, the final end of Eternity — And the beginning of Infinity.” Isaac Asimov, "The End of Eternity" (1955)

O primeiro grande impacto, de entre vários que se sucederam, que senti na leitura deste livro foi quando percebi que me tinha deixado convencer por Deutsch que a colonização da Lua e de outros planetas no espaço é algo pleno sentido. Apesar de consumir, e adorar, ficção científica, estas ideias sempre me pareceram um tanto descabidas, nomeadamente por toda a complexidade envolvida nas necessidades de oxigénio de todo o modelo de vida surgido na Terra, assim como a ausência de propósito claro. Contudo, quando entramos na cabeça de Deutsch, e nos deixamos guiar pela sua visão de vanguarda do mundo que teremos na nossa frente, tudo isso parece não só plausível, como absolutamente natural.

A base de partida para tudo, segundo Deutsch, surge com o Iluminismo (séc. XVIII), a terceira revolução do conhecimento, depois da Grécia Antiga e da Renascença italiana. Apesar de Deutsch defender que estes dois períodos anteriores se deixaram extinguir, acredito que no entanto e graças à existência de registos à data de cada um, os seus efeitos fizeram sentir-se sobre o Iluminismo, ao ponto de não acreditar na sua existência sem esses prévios movimentos. O que distinguiu este movimento de tudo o que veio antes, foi segundo Deutsch, “a way of pursuing knowledge with a tradition of criticism and seeking good explanations instead of reliance on authority”. Deste modo defende que o impacto do avanço, em termos da racionalização do mundo, obtido com o Iluminismo perdura até hoje, dando conta do conceito central de todo o livro: o começo do infinito. Porque o infinito é aquilo que nos espera através do desenvolvimento do conhecimento.

“The ability to create and use explanatory knowledge gives people a power to transform nature which is ultimately not limited by parochial factors, as all other adaptations are, but only by universal laws. This is the cosmic significance of explanatory knowledge – and hence of people, whom I shall henceforward define as entities that can create explanatory knowledge.”

Mas para que este conceito verdadeiramente funcione, ou melhor, para que se possa produzir a crença na ideia de que estamos no início de um infinito, precisamos de uma componente que por vezes não abundam na nossa espécie, mas que Deutsch transpira por todos os poros com esta sua visão do mundo, e que é o Otimismo. Para Deutsch o fundamento da relevância do conhecimento assenta na sua capacidade para resolver problemas, sendo para ele a resolução de problemas o fundamento de tudo, e aquilo que nos pode levar ao infinito, ou seja a algo que não poderemos nunca imaginar no presente, resultando num mantra otimista:

"Problems are inevitable; problems can be solved."

Mas se nós podemos resolver problemas, não é apenas por termos um cérebro e sermos dotados de inteligência, isso têm todos os restante animais, aquilo que marca esta capacidade e daí toda a relevância do Iluminismo, é o Método Científico, e por usa vez o Universalismo. O que quer isto dizer?

O método científico assenta em lógica muito simples sustentada por apenas uma ideia, a replicabilidade, ou repetição. Se um evento se repete podemos extrair uma regra, e quanto mais aprofundamos a aplicação do método e a busca pela repetição mais nos distanciamos do particular e mais nos aproximamos do universal. Ou seja, as teorias que criamos sobre o real que nos envolve não são aplicadas a casos particulares, localizados, mas são antes abstractas, independentes do particular, capazes de elaborar uma linguagem que explica o passado e pode explicar o futuro. Nesse sentido, torna-se fácil acreditar que podemos resolver problemas no futuro, desde que tenhamos identificado as regras universais que regem a realidade — ex. o caso das Leis de Newton — e assim acreditar que continuaremos a desenvolver-nos, e a expandir-nos no universo em direção ao infinito.

O que esta abordagem do mundo — método científico — nos trouxe foi não apenas uma forma para calcular o funcionamento e compreender como funciona, mas ao mesmo tempo uma enorme capacidade para fazer, transformar e construir — ex. revolução industrial. Facilmente se pode ver o salto ocorrido neste período e que assenta completamente neste método, que por sua vez não parou, tendo desde então produzido outros saltos como a recente revolução da informação. Esta abordagem permite partir da particularidade, especulando hipóteses, procurando a sua demonstração ou refutação, e assim chegar à generalização, que por sua vez nos permite ganhar terreno no controlo do real à natureza.

“From the least parochial perspectives available to us, people are the most significant entities in the cosmic scheme of things. They are not ‘supported’ by their environments, but support themselves by creating knowledge. Once they have suitable knowledge (essentially, the knowledge of the Enlightenment), they are capable of sparking unlimited further progress.”

Uma das questões mais instigantes desta abordagem de Deutsch assenta numa conceptualização do mundo em contra-ciclo com o momento atual que a nossa civilização atravessa, cansada da inspiração em teorias económicas que nos trouxeram até ao momento de grande crise por acreditarem exatamente nessa expansão infinita de recursos, recuperando assim um outro economista, Malthus, que defendeu no século XVIII a necessidade de controlo populacional por prever a incapacidade do planeta em dar repostas ao excesso de população. É do enorme otimismo de Deutsch que surge essa visão, essa ausência de medo do futuro, uma força interior imensamente crente no poder do conhecimento, nomeadamente na sua capacidade para constantemente resolver os problemas que se nos colocarão pelo real.

“Like every other destruction of optimism, whether in a whole civilisation or in a single individual, these must have been unspeakable catastrophes for those who had dared to expect progress. But we should feel more than sympathy for those people. We should take it personally. For if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.”

Com esta abordagem, como digo em contra-ciclo com muitas das ideologias do mundo atual, torna-se inevitável Deutsch entrar em conflito com teorias e teóricos de reconhecido valor, questionando-os, mas obrigando-nos a nós também a reagir, a analisar, estudar, e aprofundar as ideias apresentadas, procurando os caminhos em que acreditamos. Diga-se que Deutsch é brilhante no modo como explana, simples e direto, apresenta uma argumentação imensamente lógica, e ao mesmo tempo dirigida a instintos de que somos dotados enquanto espécie motivada intrinsecamente.

“It is a mistake to conceive of choice and decision-making as a process of selecting from existing options according to a fixed formula. That omits the most important element of decision-making, namely the creation of new options (..) an unproblematic state is a state without creative thought. Its other name is death.”

1. O problema do empirismo
Deutsch abre o livro atacando desde logo todo um conjunto de teorizações com toda uma carga aparentemente científica, nomeadamente o empirismo, procurando assim dar conta de uma abordagem do mundo que não se resigna à ciência, menos ainda ao observável, mas que é capaz de laborar sobre o experienciável com a razão. Daí que toda a conceptualização de Deutsch seja imbuída de ciência e filosofia.

“Empiricism is inadequate because scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen and the unseen, you have to admit, doesn’t come to us through the senses.”

2. As incapacidades dos neurónios espelho
A sua segunda grande crítica, tenho de admitir que me custou e lhe levanto várias objeções, já que coloca em questão uma das teorias que tenho usado ao longo da última década para explicar a aprendizagem e emocionalidade humanas, e nomeadamente todo o funcionamento do nosso sistema empático, tem que ver com os neurónios espelho. Deutsch disserta sobre as diferenças entre os animais e os seres humanos, entre o modo como o papagaio aprende uma língua e um ser humano, não refutando a existência deste mecanismo de espelho e imitação nos humanos, mas referindo que ele é apenas uma parte de todo um sistema mais complexo. O racional é simplesmente:

“Rather than imitating behaviour, a human being tries to explain it – to understand the ideas that caused it – which is a special case of the general human objective of explaining the world. When we succeed in explaining someone’s behaviour, and we approve of the underlying intention, we may subsequently behave ‘like’ that person in the relevant sense. But if we disapprove, we might behave unlike that person. Since creating explanations is second nature (or, rather, first nature) to us, we can easily misconstrue the process of acquiring a meme as ‘imitating what we see’. Using our explanations, we ‘see’ right through the behaviour to the meaning. Parrots copy distinctive sounds; apes copy purposeful movements of a certain limited class. But humans do not especially copy any behaviour. They use conjecture, criticism and experiment to create good explanations of the meaning of things – other people’s behaviour, their own, and that of the world in general. That is what creativity does.”

Apesar de poder seguir Deutsch, não consigo deixar de levantar aqui várias questões. Aceito que aquilo que nos move é a constante explanação, porque somos obcecados pela padronização do real, mas nestes processos de imitação nem sempre conseguimos chegar à explanação, aliás é exatamente isso que define o conhecimento tácito, aquele que não conseguimos explanar. Ora, quando por exemplo aprendo ténis, a única forma de melhorar é repetir, mas também ver repetidamente como os outros jogam, raramente consigo explanar o que os outros fazem, mas o facto de ver muitas vezes os outros fazerem permite-me melhorar o modo como eu próprio jogo. Isto não acontece porque consigo explicar os movimentos, mas antes porque os imito. Claro, e aqui seguindo Deutsch, nesse processo de imitação que realizo acabo muitas vezes por introduzir uma parte de mim, e desse modo construo não apenas uma imitação direta mas uma imitação transformada pela minha criatividade individual que por vezes surte práticas novas e melhores que são depois imitadas por outros. Julgo que a grande questão sobre a imitação é que ela realmente não pode responder por comportamentos complexos, ou melhor, dotados de várias camadas intrincadas de ações lógicas sem a devida racionalização, mas isso nem sempre é necessário no campo da empatia num primeiro nível de simples contágio, ou da simples imitação de movimento corporal.

3. O belo da simetria
Outro dos mitos que Deutsch tenta derrubar neste livro é a assunção de que o belo admirado pelos humanos assenta numa base simples de relações simétricas, de cor e contraste. Para tal disserta sobre o caso das flores e contrapõe-as nestas categorias às aranhas. Assim Deutsch apresenta uma visão do belo enquanto algo profundamente objetivo e universal, ainda que aceite o belo paroquial, específico a cada espécie. No caso do belo universal, no qual se enquadram as flores, existe uma base de conhecimento universal que regula o belo, tal qual existem leis de física que regulam a gravidade.

“It reaches all the way from the flower genome, with its problem of competitive pollination, to human minds which appreciate the resulting flowers as art. Not great art – human artists are far better, as is to be expected. But with the hard-to-fake appearance of design for beauty (..) “So human artists are trying to signal across the same scale of gap between humans as the flowers and insects are between species. They can use some species-specific criteria; but they can also reach towards objective beauty. Exactly the same is true of all our other knowledge.”

O autor acaba por depois definir dois tipos de arte humana, a aplicada e a pura, em que a aplicada serve para comunicar com os restantes membros da espécie, enquanto a pura existe apenas para si própria, procurando elevar os standards artísticos, de forma totalmente análoga à investigação científica. Não poderia estar mais de acordo, aliás tem sido exactamente com base nesta distinção que tenho proposto diferenciar o Entretenimento da Arte.

4. Contexto sem efeito sobre o progresso humano
Esta crítica é também bastante forte, e é talvez a mais referenciada por quem não gostou do livro ou da abordagem proposta, já que parte da crítica a um livro anterior imensamente reconhecido, e podemos mesmo dizer que no mesmo nível de importância deste para compreensão da nossa espécie, falo de “Guns, Germs, and Steel” de Jared Diamond. Ora Deutsch por desenvolver uma abordagem assente no progresso pelo conhecimento, defende que as barreiras colocadas à evolução humana nunca foram construídas pelo contexto, geográfico ou outro, mas apenas e só pela nossa incapacidade em cada momento de construir conhecimento que pudesse lidar com as dificuldades colocadas por esse contexto.

Em certa medida sigo Deutsch, até porque em pleno século XX podemos ver como a sua visão lógica faz sentido. Hoje podemos praticar sky no Dubai, assim como no nordeste brasileiro é possível plantar vários tipos de culturas anteriormente impossíveis, graças à produção de sementes geneticamente modificadas que se adaptam à agressividade dos climas tropicais. Por outro lado o trabalho de Diamond não deixa de ser relevante, porque explica como tudo se processou ao longo destes anos. Aquilo que separa de Diamond e Deutsch é mais uma questão de ovo e galinha, saber se foi o contexto a condicionar a criação humana, ou a criação humana a condicionar o contexto.

5. Alterações climáticas
Última crítica e talvez a mais forte, assim como talvez também aquela que faz mais sentido, não apenas por todo o seu discurso, mas por ser profundamente lógica. Na sua defesa por um infinito de transformações do real geradas a partir da nossa infinita capacidade para criar novo conhecimento, Deutsch vem apresentar a sua incredulidade para com as visões do real que assentam em lógicas de sustentabilidade, e que proclamam a necessidade de reduzir as emissões de CO2, de abandonar os carros, o consumo excessivo, etc. Para o autor, estas abordagens ditas sustentáveis são perigosas no sentido em que podem comprometer a evolução humana, criando ciclos infindáveis de reprodução de ideias erróneas, que da estagnação podem conduzir à extinção. A lógica do progresso humano assenta na sua expansão em direção ao infinito, o que só se suporta num comportamento contrário à redução da ação humana.

“The world is currently buzzing with plans to force reductions in gas emissions at almost any cost. But it ought to be buzzing much more with plans to reduce the temperature, or for how to thrive at a higher temperature. And not at all costs, but efficiently and cheaply. Some such plans exist – for instance to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by a variety of methods; and to generate clouds over the oceans to reflect sunlight; and to encourage aquatic organisms to absorb more carbon dioxide. But at the moment these are very minor research efforts. Neither supercomputers nor international treaties nor vast sums are devoted to them. They are not central to the human effort to face this problem, or problems like it. This is dangerous.”

Apesar de politicamente incorrecto não posso deixar de seguir Deutsch, é algo que me tem acompanhado ao longo dos últimos anos, por mais que eu queira defender a preservação do planeta, e quero, não consigo deixar de ver estas abordagens de regresso ao passado nas nossas vidas, como um simples meter a cabeça debaixo de areia, como nostalgia totalmente despegada do presente e futuro.


Para fechar esta resenha que vai longa quero apenas dizer que “The Beginning of Infinity” é um livro que precisa de ser lido com a mente aberta. Por vezes um pouco mais denso, nomeadamente nas questões sobre física quântica e mundos possíveis, bastando ainda assim apenas alguma atenção e concentração para se chegar às ideias e compreender o que se discute. É um livro que nos abre um mundo de explanações sobre o mundo que habitamos, que nos leva a descortinar e questionar muito do real que assumimos como imutável e intransponível, que nos conduz da assunção de mera insignificância num universo de galáxias quase-infinitas à posição de seres dotados de capacidade de explanação e ação, estas sim infinitas.

Ler com formatação e links em: http://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/2...

[Mohamed al-Jamri · Rating 4 out of 5]

هل هناك حد للتقدم البشري؟ وهل سنصل في يوم ما إلى أقصى ما يمكن الوصول له لتدخل حضارتنا بعد ذلك في مرحلة من الجمود؟ يحاول ديفيد دويتش، الفيزيائي من جامعة «أكسفورد» والمتخصص في مجال «الحوسبة الكمومية» أن يقنعنا بأن الإجابة على هذه الأسئلة هي لا، فالتقدم البشري لا نهاية له. «بداية اللانهاية: تفسيراتٌ تُغَيِّر وجه العالَم» هو ثاني كتاب للمؤلف، يتطرق في فصوله الثمانية عشر إلى مواضيع علمية وفلسفية مركزاً على أهمية «التفسيرات الجيدة» ليس فقط في العلم، بل في كل مجالات المعرفة البشرية. يقدم دويتش في هذا الكتاب العميق نظرة متفائلة حول قدرة البشرية على الوصول للتقدم اللانهائي عن طريق صناعة المعرفة والتي تتم بفعل التفسيرات الجيدة والثقافة النقدية والتفاؤل بأن التقدم ممكن.

في البداية يقوم الكاتب بطرح أفكاره الخاصة حول «الإبيستيمولوجيا» أو «نظرية المعرفة» والمُلهَمة بشكل كبير من أفكار الفيلسوف النمساوي كارل بوبر. ينتقد الكاتب الفكر التجريبي ويقول أنه رغم كونه مفيداً في وقت ما من أجل تحريرنا من الأفكار الدوغمائية، فإنه وضع سلطة جديدة مكان القديمة، وأطروحته حول كون الحواس مصدر المعرفة غير صحيحة، فكل مشاهدة محمّلة بالنظرية. إن مصدر المعرفة هو العقل والتفكير، والتجربة هي سبيل لاختبار الفرضيات لا مصدر للأفكار الجديدة. في المقابل يطرح الكاتب فكرة «اللامعصومية» التي تقوم على أساس إنكار وجود مصادر سلطوية للمعرفة، وعلى أن تفسيراتنا للواقع، مهما كانت ممتازة فإنها تحتوي على بعض الأخطاء جنباً إلى جنب مع الحقائق، ولذلك هناك حاجة مستمرة لتغيير تفسيراتنا نحو الأفضل، ولن يكون هناك تقسير نهائي يتوقع عنده البحث. هذا المذهب ضروري للبدء في نمو معرفي غير محدود.

حدثت «القفزة نحو اللانهاية» مرة واحدة فقط في تاريخ البشرية، ففي بداية التاريخ كانت الأسطورة هي السائدة، وشهدت الحضارة موجات تقدم تبعتها موجات تخلف كما حصل في اليونان والحضارة الإسلامية، فما هو المميز هذه المرة؟ لم يكن ظهور العلم الحديث في فراغ، بل كان جزءاً من حركة فكرية أكبر هي «التنوير» والتي جلبت التقدم في مجالات أخرى كالسياسة وعلم الأخلاق. التنوير في الأساس تغيّر فلسفي وثورة ضد السلطة فيما يختص بالمعرفة، فقبله كان يُعتقد أننا نعرف كل شيءٍ يمكن معرفته، وبذلك لم يكن هناك دافع لمعرفة المزيد. يذكرني كلام الكاتب هنا بما قاله يوفال هراري في كتابه «العقال: موجز تاريخ البشرية» حيث يذكر أن أحد أهم إنجازات التنوير هو «اكتشاف الجهل». تميّزت حركة التنوير بطرح تفسيرات جديدة، وتطوير تقليد نقدي، وعدم التسليم للسلطات المعرفية، والتفاؤل بحدوث التقدّم والسعي لتحقيقه.

والتفاؤل هذا، موضوعٌ يخصص له الكاتب فصلاً بحد ذاته، فهو يرى أن التفاؤل هو الإيمان بالتقدم وزيادة المعرفة وأن مصدر كل الشرور هو الجهل. كانت هناك تحذيرات تشاؤمية كثيرة عن مصير البشرية الأسود على مدى التاريخ، وارتبطت هذه التحذيرات بمبدأ الوقاية من المخاطر. فمالثوس مثلاً حذّر من زيادة عدد السكان أسرع من الموارد مما سيؤدي للمجاعات والحروب، ولكن خطأ مالثوس كما هو خطأ المتشائمين الآخرين هو أنهم لم يأخذوا بعين الاعتبار أننا لا يمكن لنا توقع النتائج المستقبلية واحتمالاتها، لذلك أخطأ تنبؤه وازدادت قدرتنا على إنتاج المواد الغذائية بفعل تقدم العلوم والتكنولوجيا. لا يمكن لنا معرفة المشاكل المستقبلية، فضلاً عن الحلول اللازمة لها. إن زيادة المعرفة هو ما يمكن أن يحمينا من المستقبل المجهول، وهو ما يعني أن أي مشكلة ستكون محدودة ومؤقتة، ولو كان لدى الناس في الماضي مقدار أكبر من المعرفة لتمكنوا من تجنب الكثير من الكوارث، وهو ما يعني أننا اليوم -وبفعل تراكم المعرفة- في أكثر القرون أماناً لحد الآن. «المشكلات حتمية، ولكنها قابلة للحل» هذا ما يؤكده الكاتب، بل ويطلب منّا كتابته على الحجر!

ينتقد الكاتب «مبدأ العادية» الذي يقول بأنه لايوجد شيء مميز في الإنسان والأرض والنظام الشمسي، هذا المبدأ الفلسفي تطوّر بفعل الاكتشافات العلمية التي أظهرت أن الأرض ليست مركز الكون وأن البشر تطوّروا من كائنات أكثر بدائية وأنهم يشتركون مع بقية الكائنات في الأصل. يتجلى هذا المبدأ بوضوح في كلام العالم الفيزيائي ستيفين هوكنج الذي قال أن «الجنس البشري ليس سوى حثالة كيميائية على كوكب متوسط الحجم، يدور حول نجم عادي جداً في ضاحية خارجية ضمن مجرة واحدة من مئات المليارات من المجرات». من المفترض أن يخرجنا هذا المبدأ من ضيق أفقنا البشري ليفتح أمامنا آفاق الكون الواسع، ولكن الكاتب بعتبره ضيّق الأفق، فالبشر -وأي كيان ذكي آخر يستطيع صناعة المعرفة التفسيرية- مميزون في الكون بأمور كثيرة، أهما قدرتهم غير المحدودة على صنع المعرفة. إن المعرفة تؤدي للسيطرة والتحكم، وبالتالي فالمعرفة الصحيحة تجعل كل شيء ممكناً طالما لم يكن محظوراً وفقاً لقوانين الفيزياء. إن هذا يعني أن البشر كما غيروا سطح الأرض بمعرفتهم فإنهم سيتمكنون في المستقبل من إحداث تغييرات كبيرة على مستوى الكون.

حجم الكتاب كبير –حوالي 500 صفحة- وكمية الأفكار فيه كبيرة وعميقة، ولم أذكر منها في هذه المساحة البسيطة سوى النزر اليسير. ينتقد الكاتب وبثقة كبيرة عدداً كبيراً من المفاهيم التي يعتبرها خاطئة كـ«التجريبية»، «الاستقرائية»، «الوضعية»، «الاختزالية»، «النسبية» و«ما بعد الحداثية» وغيرها، وينقد كذلك أفكار عدد كبير من العلماء مثل ستيفين هوكنج، ريتشارد دوكنز، ريتشارد فاينمان، توماس أديسون وحتى مخرج الأفلام الوثائقية ديفيد أتينبارا. لا اعتقد أن أحداً سلم من انتقاداته سوى الفيلسوف كارل بوبر! هل يبدو هذا كثيراً؟ نعم، وهناك الكثير من الأفكار الثقيلة التي يطرحها الكاتب كذلك، كثير منها لم يستطع حسب تقديري شرحها بشكل وافي. يحسب له استخدام الأمثلة والتجارب الفكرية لتبسيط أفكاره قدر الإمكان وكذلك توضيح المصطلحات المستخدمة وتلخيص كل فصل في نهايته. كان هناك فصل خاص أيضًا لخّص فيه مفاهيم كثيرة بطريقة أدبية استعار فيها طريقة أفلاطون الحوارية وهو أكثر فصل نال إعجابي. لا أرى أن فكرة الكتاب الأساسية أطروحة علمية، بل هي أقرب إلى أن تكون نظرة فلسفية ومزاج مبني على إطلاع وتفكير عميق على مختلف المنتجات الحضارية البشرية، خصوصاً العلمية منها.

[Tiffany Conner · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's not often that I feel comfortable giving a book 5 stars. While I recognize that ranking books with stars is a decidedly arbitrary way to judge quality, if it will encourage other people to give this book the time it deserves, then 5 stars it is.

There are so many good things to say about The Beginning of Infinity. I'll offer up some of the more unoriginal phrases of praise: Thought-provoking, eye-opening, original, insightful, erudite, and written in clear, accessible prose. I saw this book on the 2011 Notable Books list in The New York Times and put it in my wishlist as soon as I read the blurb. I've been on a reading kick trifecta in which I have found myself interested in reading anything I can about neuroscience, economics, and physics. Science in general has been on the top of my lists of late. I can't say why exactly. I am right crap at math and didn't study a hard science during university. Nevertheless, I have fallen in love with the stuff.

Deutsch is a professor of physics at Oxford University, but his intellectual reach is impressive. If this book is any indication, Deutsch is probably one of the most learned authors I have ever read. The central theme of the book is that knowledge and progress are intertwined with an ability to ask good questions. Without this tradition of criticism and a continued examination of facts there can be no progress, and without progress humanity itself would not exist. Deutsch points to the Enlightment as the place in human history where this powerful, intellectual transformation and tradition of criticism originated, but he manages to do so without writing an off-putting screed about the superiority of the West and dismissal of "The Rest". The only "superior" in this narrative is knowledge. While there have been other periods of creative burst which have mirrored or predated the Enlightment, they were missing vital components which prevented them from becoming true building blocks in the "beginning of infinity". These other periods were without a tradition of criticism. Criticism creates creativity; criticism cultivates creativity; criticism creates culture--without criticism, societies cannot evolve and become great. It sounds simple enough, but in Deutsch's hands this deceptively simple argument is deftly composed, and any and all forays into what might initially seem like misguided tangents, are firmly fleshed out. You are learning something new on every page.

Deutsch writes convincingly of the need to seek good explanations for answers, rather than rely on superstition or bad logic. He rejects relativism, empiricism, and behaviorism, among other things, in the name of good, critical thinking. And what's most fascinating about this is that Deutsch takes this general premise about the paramount nature of explanations to the transformation of the world and applies it to philosophy, art, space exploration, beauty, governance, among so many other things. And each time he makes a case, it's well-argued, well-supported, and very convincing. While Deutsch does write a little about physics, this is not a book purely about science or physics. It is a book about knowledge, how societies are improved with knowledge, and how the search for knowledge must always be at the heart of what we do as a species. It's an inspiring investigation. I am pleased to have stumbled upon this book. It is, without question, now one of my favorite books of all-time.

[Diarmid · Rating 3 out of 5]

David Deutsch is a Fellow of the Royal Society and and expert on the quantum theory of computation based at Oxford University. Physics and an understanding of the laws of physics are at the core of this book, but it is just as much a work of philosophy, dealing as it does with progress and human society. Deutsch's contention is that the laws of reality can be known and will provide endless opportunity for investigation and the expansion of knowledge, that the principles of the scientific method established since the Enlightenment allow us to discover the laws of reality, and that there is no limit to human progress. Deutsch makes his argument brilliantly, and there is a great deal of speculation about optimism, memes, and the nature of intellectual progress that provides a new perspective on our society and where it might go, but the book as a whole is strangely unsatisfying.

It is difficult to find fault with the arguments in the book, but it feels like Deutsch's view is ultimately lacking, that it looks at only one aspect of human progress and underplays others. For example, Deutsch references Jared Diamond's brilliant 'Guns, Germs and Steel' in it's examination of why indigenous societies in America were defeated and destroyed by European colonialism. Diamond's argument is based on resources and their effect of human development, which slowed and limited development in the Americas and allowed Europe to progress faster. Deutsch argues that a lack of resources does not present a barrier to human progress, as Enlightenment thinking will allow any lack of resources to be overcome or avoided, and will in fact change how resources are defined. The civilisations now in America have the same resources as the indigenous civilisations, but are vastly wealthier and more advanced because they use resources differently. The problem is that Deutsch claims that all pre-Enlightenment societies suffered from the same limitations, yet European societies were able to overtake and overwhelm indigenous societies. Medieval Spain was profoundly unscientific and riddled with the sort of ideas that Deutsch identifies as a barrier to progress, but was able to overwhelm the Incan empire and the other civilisations of the Americas. Deutsch argues that progress is based on a certain way of thinking, and that societies without that way of thinking are static and incapable of progress, yet that argument seems to be unable to address why pre-Enlightenment Europe managed to advance and overtake other areas of the world.

On the other side of the coin, Deutsch argues that a society which uses Enlightenment thinking is capable of unstoppable and infinite growth. He does identify instances of other societies that have developed the same way of thinking, most obviously classical Athens, but he never really explains why these societies did not carry on progressing while arguing that our society will. In the end, no matter how brilliant Deutsch's argument it feels too simplistic to explain the complexities of human progress and the reasons why societies rise and fall, and thus inadequate to predict how our society will progress and how we will overcome the problems and threats that face us over the next decades. Deutsch's views on progress are fascinating and his views on optimism refreshing, but his argument as a whole feels ultimately slightly ephemeral and sophist, beautiful but not wholly practical.

[Mahmoud Aghiorly · Rating 4 out of 5]

مقتطفات من كتاب بداية اللانهاية للكاتب ديفيد دويتش
--------------------
على مرِّ تاريخ البشر، لم يتحقَّق التقدم بالسرعة التي تجعله ملحوظًا، ولا بالثبات الذي يدعم استمراره عبر أجيالٍ عديدةٍ إلا مرة واحدة. ولقد تزامنَتْ بدايته مع اندلاع الثورة العلمية تقريبًا، ولا يزال متواصِلًا حتى الآن، وتضمَّنَ تطوُّراتٍ لم تقتصرفقط على الفهم العلمي، بل امتدتْ أيضًا لتشمل التكنولوجيا والمؤسسات السياسية والقِيَم الأخلاقية والفنون وسائر مناحي الرخاء الإنساني.
--------------
إن العالم المادي ليس فقط أكبر وأعنف كثيرًا مما بَدَا عليه من قبلُ، بل هو أغنى على نحوٍ كبيرٍ بالتفاصيل والتنوُّع والأحداث كذلك، التي تجري كلها وفقًا لقوانين الفيزياء الرائعة التي نفهمها بشيءٍ من العمق. ولست أدري أي الأمرين أروع: الظواهر ذاتها أم حقيقة أننا نعلم الكثير عنها
----------------
إننا لا نُولَد صفحة بيضاء بل بتوقُّعاتٍ ونوايا كامنةٍ وقدرةٍ فطريةٍ على العمل على تطويرها باستخدام التفكير والتجربة. والتجربة ضروريةٌ للعلم، ولكن دورها يختلف عمَّا تفترضه التجريبية؛ فهي ليست المصدر الذي تُستنتَج منه النظريات، وإنما هي أداة رئيسية للاختيار بين النظريات التي تمَّ تخمينها بالفعل، وهذا ما يُعرَف التعلم من التجرية
----------------
لا يخطو الرجل في نفس النهر مرتين؛ فلا النهر يظل نفسالنهر، ولا الرجل نفس الرجل
----------------------
لطالما كان خداع الحواسعقبةً في طريق التجريبية؛ ومن ثَمَّ — كما بَدَا — في طريق العلم. وكان أفضل ما قدَّمه التجريبيون من دفاعٍ هو أن الحواس لا يمكن أن تكون خادعةً في حد ذاتها؛ وإن ما يُضلِّلنا هو التأويلات الخاطئة التي نَقرُنها بالمظهر الخارجي لما حولنا. هذا صحيح بالفعل، لكن فقط لأن حواسنا لا تفعل أي شيء في هذا الشأن؛ فتأويلاتنا لها هي ما يُضلِّلنا؛ لأنها عرضة بشكلٍ كبيرٍ للخطأ. من هنا، نقول إن المفتاح الحقيقي للعلم هو قابلية نظرياتنا التفسيرية — التي تتضمَّن تلك التأويلات — للتحسين من خلال الافتراضوالنقد والاختبار.
------------------------
لم يفعل أجدادنا لآلاف الأجيال سوى النظر إلى سماء الليل والتساؤل عن ماهية تلك النجوم: ممَّ تتكوَّن؟ وما الذي يُكسِبها لمعانها؟ وما علاقة بعضها ببعض وبنا؟ وهي تساؤلات تستحقُّ الطرح. كانوا يستخدمون عيونًا وعقولًا لا تختلف تشريحيٍّا عن مثيلاتها ممَّا يملكه علماءُ الفلك في العصرالحديث، لكنهم لم يكتشفوا أيَّشيءٍ على الإطلاق؛ وتنطبق نفسالحقيقة على كل مجالات المعرفة الأخرى.
---------------------------
لم يكن رفض السلطة على المعرفة أمرًا متعلِّقًا بالتحليل المجرد فحسب، بل كان شرطًاضروريٍّا للتقدُّم؛ ذلك لأن المعتقد السائد قبل التنوير كان أنَّ كلَّ ما هو مهم وقابل للمعرفة قد اكتُشِف بالفعل، وقد أكَّدَتْ ذلك المعتقدَ مصادرُ السلطة المختلفة كالكتابات القديمة والافتراضات التقليدية، وأضفَتْ عليه من قُدسيَّتها.
--------------------
هناك دائمًا تفسير لنجاح أحكام الخبرة، سواءٌ أعلمناه أم لم نعلمْه، وإنكار وجود تفسيرٍ لبعض الانتظام في الطبيعة يُعادل الإيمانَ بما هو خارق للطبيعة
--------------------
أعتقد أنه ليس للعلم، أو حتى للفلسفة، إلا طريق واحد: أن تقابل مشكلةً، فترى جمالَها وتُغرَم بها وتقترب منها جدٍّا، وتحيا معها في سعادةٍ حتى يُفرِّق بينكما الموتُ، وهذا ما لم تكن قد قابلتَ مشكلةً أخرى أكثر إبهارًا، أو توصَّلْتَ في الواقع إلى حلٍّ للمشكلة الأولى. لكن حتى إذا توصَّلْتَ إلى هذا الحل، فقد تكتشف حينها لدواعي سرورك وجودَ أسرةٍ كاملةٍ من المشكلات الفرعية، المثيرة وربما الصعبة
-------------------
تأمَّلْ على سبيل المثال الأسطورةَ الإغريقيةَ المفسِّرةَ لبداية الشتاء كلَّ عام؛ منذ زمنٍ سحيق، اختطف هيدز إله العالم السفلي برسيفوني إلهة الربيع واغتصبها، ففاوضَتْه أمُّها ديميتر إلهة الأرضوالزراعة على اتفاقٍ لإطلاق سراح ابنتها، نصَّعلى أن تتزوَّج برسيفوني من هيدز، وأن تتناول بذرةً سحريةً تضطرها إلى زيارته مرةً كلَّ عام للأبد، وكلَّما تغيَّبت برسيفوني عن الوفاء بذلك الالتزام، حزنت ديميتر وأمرَتِ العالمَ أن يكون باردًا قاتمًا بحيث لا ينمو أيُّشيء فيه. هذه الأسطورة — على زيفها التام — تَصوغ تفسيرًا ما للفصول؛ فهي زعم عن الواقع الخاص بتجربتنا عن الشتاء، كما أنها قابلة للاختبار بوضوح؛ إذ لو كان سببُ الشتاء هو حزنَ ديميتر الدوري، لَتزامَنَ الشتاءُ في كل بقاع الأرضفي نفس الوقت؛ وعليه فلو علم اليونانيون القدماء أن موسمَ نموٍّ دافئًا يمرُّ بأستراليا في نفس الوقت، بحسب اعتقادهم، الذي تكون ديميتر فيه في أعمق لحظات حزنها، لَكان بإمكانهم الاستدلال على وجود خطأٍ ما في تفسيرهم للفصول.
--------------------
أكثر ما يعيب التفسيراتِ الأسطوريةَ هو الحرية في عمل تغييراتٍ جذريةٍ فيها، وهذه الحرية هي أيضًا السبب في أن صُنْعَ الأساطير عمومًا ليس بالطريقة المثلى لفهم العالم. وهذا صحيح، سواءٌ أكانت تلك الأساطير قابلةً للاختبار أم لا؛ لأنه حين يكون من السهل تغييرُ تفسيرٍ ما دون أن تتغيَّرَ تنبؤاتُه، يكون من السهل أيضًا تغييرُه ليطرح تنبؤاتٍ مختلفةً إذا كانت هناك حاجةٌ إليها
---------------------
العلم هو ما تعلَّمناه بشأن كيفية الامتناع عن خداع أنفسنا
--------------------
إن الافتراضات هي نواتج الخيال الإبداعي، لكن مشكلة الخيال أنه يمكن أن يخلق الوهم أسهل ممَّا يخلق الحقيقة
--------------------
التجريبية: مفهوم خاطئ مفاده أننا نستنتج المعرفة كلها من الخبرات الحسية.
------------------
الاستقرائية: مفهوم خاطئ مفاده أن النظريات العلمية يتم الوصول إليها بتعميم التجارب المتكررة، وبأنه كلما أكدت الملاحظة النظرية زادَتِ احتماليةُ صحةِ النظرية
----------------
الواقعية: فكرة مفادها أن العالم المادي موجود في الواقع، وأن المعرفة به موجودة كذلك.
----------------
النسبوية: مفهوم خاطئ مفاده أن الافتراضات لا يمكن أن تكون صحيحة أو خاطئة على نحوٍ موضوعي، بل يكون الحكم عليها في الغالب تبعًا لمقاييسَ ثقافيةٍ أو إلزاميةٍ أخرى.
-----------------
الذرائعية: مفهوم خاطئ مفاده أن كل ما يستطيعه العلم هو أن يتنبَّأ بنتائج الملاحظات، لا أن يصف الواقع.
------------------
التبريرية: مفهوم خاطئ مفاده أن المعرفة لا تكون حقيقية أو موثوقة إلا إذا برَّرَها مصدرٌ أو معيارٌ ما.
-------------------
اللامعصومية: الاعتراف بأنه ليست هناك مصادر سلطوية على المعرفة، ولا أي وسائل موثوق بها لتبرير المعرفة بكونها حقيقية أو محتملة.
-------------
عقلاني: محاولة حل المشكلات بواسطة البحث عن تفسيراتٍ جيدة، والسعي النَّشِط لتصحيح الأخطاء بنقد الأفكار الموجودة والمطروحة.
-------------------
المظاهر خادعة، إلا أننا نملك قدرًا هائلًا من المعرفة عن الواقع الواسع وغير المألوف الذي يتسبَّب فيها، وعن القوانين العامة الأنيقة التي تحكم هذا الواقع.
-------------------
المصدر الحقيقي لنظرياتنا هو الافتراض، والمصدر الحقيقي لمعرفتنا هو المبادلة بين الافتراض والنقد
------------------
بإمكان الإنسان أن يُضفيَ الإبداعَ حتى على المهام التي تؤدِّيها أجهزةُ الكمبيوتر وغيرها من الآلات بلا إبداع؛ فالعلم ليس جهدًا يفتقر إلى الإبداع، يتمثل مكسبه الوحيد في لحظاتٍ نادرةٍ من الاكتشاف؛ لأنه يمكن لهذا الجهد أن يكون ممتعًا وإبداعيٍّا، تمامًا مثل اكتشاف تفسيراتٍ جديدة
------------------
احتمالات وفاة أي طفلٍ يُولَد بالولايات المتحدة اليومَ نتيجةً لحادث اصطدامٍ فلكي؛ تفوق احتمالات وفاته في حادث سير. إن الحادثَيْن ضعيفَا الاحتمال، لكن إن لم نبتكر قدرًا من المعرفة العلمية والتكنولوجية يفوق ما لدينا الآن، فلن نملك آليةَ دفاعٍ ضد هذا الخطر وغيره من الكوارث الطبيعية التي لا بد أنها ستحدث لا محالة، بل إن هناك أيضًا مخاطرَ أكثر قُربًا واحتمالًا تهدد الوجود أصلًا
-----------------
من المحتم أن تواجهنا مشكلات، لكن لا توجد مشكلة معينة حتمية؛ فنحن نبقى ونرتقي بحل أي مشكلةٍ حينما تظهر. وبما أن القدرة البشرية على تحويل الطبيعة لا تحدها إلا قوانين الطبيعة؛ إذن فلن تشكِّل أبدًا أيُّ مشكلةٍ من سيل المشكلات اللامتناهي حاجزًا مستحيلًا.
-----------------
الكيانات الذكية هي أهم الكيانات في المنظومة الأكبر للكون؛ فبيئتها لا تدعمها، وإنما تدعم هي ذاتَها بابتكار المعرفة، وبمجرد أن تتوافر لديها المعرفةُ المناسبة (وبخاصة التنويرية منها)، تصبح قادرةً على إطلاقشرارة المزيد من التقدُّم غير المحدود
----------------
تدور الداروينية الجديدة حول فكرةٍ رئيسيةٍ هي أن التطوُّر يُحابي الجينات التي تُجيد الانتشار بين أفراد النوع
----------------
إن التطوُّرَ حتى قد يفضِّل جيناتٍ ليست فقط أقلَّ من المُثلى، بل ضارة أيضًا بالكامل للنوع ولأفراده، ومن الأمثلة الشهيرة على ذلك ذيلُ الطاووس الملوَّن الكبير، الذي يُعتقَد أنه يقلِّل من فُرص استمرار حياته؛ لأنه يُصعب مهمتَه في التخفِّي من الحيوانات المفترسة، كما أنه ليس له وظيفةٌ مفيدة على الإطلاق سادت جيناتُ الذيول البارزة ببساطةٍ لأن إناثَ الطاووس تميل إلى اختيار الذكور ذوي الذيول البارزة عند التزاوج؛ فلماذا كان ضغطُ الانتقاء في صالح تلك التفضيلات؟ أحد الأسباب أن الإناث عندما تزاوَجَتْ من الذكور ذوي الذيول البارزة أنجبت ذكورًا ذوي ذيولًا أكثر تميُّزًا، وجدت بدورها إناثًا أكثرَ للتزاوُج، ومن الأسباب أيضًا أن الذكر ذا الذيل الكبير والملوَّن يكون غالبًا أوفرَ صحةً. في كل الأحوال، كانت محصلة ضغوط الانتقاء أنِ انتشرتْ كلٌّ من جينات الذيول الكبيرة الملوَّنة، وجينات تفضيل هذه الذيول في أفراد النوع، وكان على النوع وأفراده أن يعانيَ العواقب.
--------------
الإبداع هو أهم منابع التبايُن في النظريات التفسيرية؛ فمثلًا: عندما يحاول الناس فهم فكرةٍ يسمعونها من غيرهم، فلا يصلهم منها إلا أكثر المعاني منطقيةً بالنسبة إليهم، أو ما يتوقَّعون أن يسمعوا، أو ما يخشون أن يسمعوا، وهكذا. يفترضالقارئ أو المستمع هذه المعاني، التي قد تختلف عمَّا كان يعنيه الكاتب أو المتحدِّث، وبالإضافة إلى هذا، عادةً ما يسعى الناسُ إلى تحسين التفسيرات، حتى إن تلقَّوْها بدقةٍ؛ إذ يقومون بتعديلاتهم الإبداعية النابعة من نقدهم الشخصي، وهم إذ ينقلون بعد ذلك التفسيرَ لغيرهم، يحاولون عادةً أن ينقلوا ما يعتقدون أنه النسخة المحسَّنة منه
--------------
لو كان معدل تمدُّد الكون إبَّان الانفجار العظيم أعلى قليلًا، لَمَا تكوَّنت النجوم، ولَمَا وُجِد في الكون غير الهيدروجين، في كثافةٍ شديدة الانخفاض وآخِذةٍ في الانخفاض أكثر. ولو كان معدل التمدُّد أقلَّ قليلًا، لَعاوَدَ الكونُ الانهيارَ على نفسِه في أعقاب الانفجار. ينطبق الأمر نفسه على الكثير من الثوابت الفيزيائية الأخرى غير المحددة بنظرياتٍ معروفة، ويبدو أن معظم تلك الثوابت، إنْ لم يكن كلها، لو تغيَّرَتْ أقل تغيير، لَمَا أمكن وجود الحياة بالمرة
-----------------
إذا ملأتَ غلايةً بالماء وقمتَ بتشغيلها، فلن تستطيع كلُّ أجهزة الكمبيوتر الفائقة على كوكب الأرضأن تحلَّ المعادلات التي تتنبَّأ بما ستفعله كلُّ تلك الجزيئات من المياه، وإنْ قضَتِ الدهرَ كلَّه في المحاولة؛ حتى لو استطعنا أن نحدِّد إلى حدٍّ ما حالتَها الأولية وحالةَ كلِّ المؤثرات الخارجية التي قد تتعرَّضلها، وهي مهمة في حد ذاتها مستحيلة.
-----------------------
عندما تستتبع منطقيٍّا تفسيراتٌ ذات مستوًى أدنى تفسيرًا ذا مستوًى أعلى، فإن ذلك يعني أيضًا أن التفسير ذا المستوى الأعلى يشير ضمنيٍّا إلى شيءٍ ما بخصوص التفسيرات ذات المستوى الأدنى؛ ومن ثَمَّ فإن المزيد من النظريات ذات المستوى الأعلى — إذا اتسقت جميعًا بعضها مع بعض — قد تضع المزيد والمزيد من القيود على ما قد ينشأ من نظرياتٍ ذات مستوًى أدنى. وبهذا قد تشير كلُّ التفسيرات ذات المستوى الأعلى ضمنيٍّا إلى كل التفسيرات ذات المستوى الأدنى، والعكس أيضًا صحيح. أو ربما تشير بعضُ التفسيرات ذات المستوى الأعلى والأوسط والأدنى مجتمعةً ضمنيٍّا إلى كل التفسيرات
-----------------------
الاختزالية والمذهب الكلي كلاهما خطأ. التفسيرات في الحقيقة لا تكون تسلسلًا يجعل من أدنى المستويات أكثرها أساسية، بل في الواقع يمكن للتفسيرات أن تكون أساسيةً على أي مستوًى من الانبثاق. والكيانات المجردة حقيقية، ويمكن أن تلعب دورًا في التسبُّب في حدوث الظواهر الفيزيائية. والسببية نفسها كيان مجرد
----------------
إن المعرفة معلومات إذا ما جُسِّدت ماديٍّا في بيئةٍ مناسبة، فإنها تميل لأن تبقى هكذا
------------------
أسلوب الطباعة لم يُحدِثْ أيَّ فارقٍ عندما اختُرِع في الصين في القرن الحادي عشر؛ ربما لعدم الاهتمام المعتاد بالعمومية، أو ربما لأن نظام الكتابة الصينية يستخدم آلافَ الرسوم التصويرية؛ ممَّا قلَّل المزايا المباشرة للاعتماد على نظام طباعةٍ عمومي. لكن عندما أعاد يوهانز جوتنبرج اكتشافَ أسلوب الطباعة هذا في أوروبا في القرن الخامس عشر باستخدام حروف الأبجدية المتحركة، استهَلَّ ذلك فيضانًا من التقدُّم من بعده.
-----------------
المشكلات حتمية الحدوث، لكنها قابلة للحل
---------------
العمومية تتطلَّب نظامًا يأخذ في حسبانه أن الأخطاء ستحدث لا محالة، ولكنه يصححها بمجرد أن تحدث
----------------
لم يحقِّق مجالُ الذكاء الاصطناعي (العام) أيَّ تقدُّمٍ؛ نظرًا لوجود مشكلةٍ فلسفيةٍ بلا حلٍّ في صميمه، وهي أننا لا نفهم كيف يحدث الإبداع، وعندما يتمُّ حلُّ هذه المشكلة، لن تكون برمجتُه أمرًا صعبًا. وعلى عكس ما قد يبدو، لم يتحقَّقِ التطوُّرُ الاصطناعي حتى اليوم، ولدينا مشكلة وهي أننا لا نفهم طبيعةَ عموميةِ نظامِ نسخ الدي إن إيه
----------------------------
بداية اللانهاية هي إمكانية نموِّ المعرفة غير المحدود في المستقبل
--------------------------
يعتمد مستقبلُ الحضارة برُمَّته على ما نعتقده وما نفعله. إذا انهارَتِ الحضارةُ، فلن يكون ذلك بمحض الصدفة، بل سيكون نتيجةً لاختيارات البشر، وإذا نجَتْ، فسيُعزَى ذلك إلى نجاحهم في حلِّ مشكلات النجاة والبقاء، وهو أيضًا ما لن يحدث بالصدفة.
----------------------------
سوف يتشكَّلُ مستقبلنا بواسطة معرفةٍ لم نصل إليها بعدُ
-----------------------
يمكن لتبعةٍ كارثيةٍ واحدةٍ لابتكارٍ مفيدٍ أن تضع حدٍّا نهائيٍّا للتقدُّم البشري إلى الأبد
-------------------
فرص الشخص العادي على الأرض في أن يلقى مصرعَه إثر اصطدام كويكبٍ بالأرض، تفوق احتمالات وفاته في حادث تحطُّم طائرة.
---------------------
نقْص المعرفة أصل كل الشرور
--------
لم يبدأ تنويرُ فلورنسا في السياسة وإنما في الفن، ثم الفلسفة، والعلم والتكنولوجيا، واتَّسَمَتْ في تلك المجالات بنفس الترحاب بالنقد والرغبة في الابتكار في كلٍّ من الفكر والفعل
---------------
الحضارة المتفائلة منفتحة لا تخشى الابتكار، وتقوم على تقاليد النقد. إن مؤسساتها تُطوِّرُ من نفسها دائمًا، وأهم معرفةٍ تمثِّلها هي معرفةُ كيفيةِ الكشف عن الأخطاء واستبعادها.
-------------
لو سخرتُ من أحدهم — كما يحدث من آنٍ لآخَر — لكان ذلك أملًا في أن يساعدني في البحث عن الحقيقة التي لا يعرفها أيٌّ منَّا بعدُ. أنا لا أسخر من استعلاءٍ كما تفعل أنت؛ فجلُّ مرادي هو حثُّ رفيقي البشري على مساعدتي لأنظر أبعد ممَّا تسهل رؤيتُه
----------------
الجليِّ أنني لا أستطيع أن أكون واثقا تماما من أي شيء، لكنني لا أبتغي أن أكون كذلك، لا يسعني تصوُّرُ أمرٍ أكثر إضجارًا من وصول المرء إلى حالة تمام الثقة في معتقداته، التي يبدو أن البعض يتوقون إليها. لا أرى لها نفعًا سوى أنها تُقدِّم ما يُشبه الحجةَ حينما لا يملك المرءُ حجةً حقيقيةً، ولحسن الطالع أن تلك الحالة العقلية لا تمتُّ بصلةٍ لما أصبو إليه، والذي هو اكتشافُ حقيقةِ الكيفية التي يكون عليها العالَمُ، والأسبابُ، بل الأكثر من ذلك أيضًا الحال التي ينبغي أن يكون عليها.
-------------
هم لا يؤمنون بأنه بمرور الزمن، وبالسعي سنتعلَّم ونعرف الأشياءَ معرفةً أفضل إنهم يتفقون فيما بينهم لأن قوانينهم وعاداتهم تفرض عليهم التطابُقَ، أما نحن فنتفق فيما بيننا (إلى الحد الذي نتفق عليه) لأننا اكتشفنا بعضَالمعرفة الأصلية بواسطة تقليدِ الجدل النقدي اللامتناهي الذي نمارسه. وبما أنَّ لكلِّ أمرٍ حقيقةً واحدة، تتقارب أفكارنا بعضها من بعضكلما دَنَتْ من تلك الحقيقة؛ ومن ثَمَّ يزداد اتفاقنا. إن إجماع الناس على الحقيقة يجعلهم يتفقون بعضهم مع بعض أيضًا وبالإضافة إلى ذلك، لا نُدهش لعدم وصولهم إلى التطوير قطُّ؛ لأنهم لا يسعَوْن إليه مطلقًا. أما نحن — في المقابل — فنسعى إليه بواسطة النقد والجدل المتواصلَيْن، وبمحاولة تصحيح أفكارنا وسلوكنا، الأمر الذي يجعلنا في موقعٍ أفضل يؤهِّلنا لتعلُّمِ المزيد في المستقبل.
----------------
أفضِّل بدلًا من أن أصنع سجلٍّا دائمًا لكل مفاهيمي الخاطئة كما هي في لحظةٍ ما، أن أقدِّمها للآخرين في صورةِ جدالٍ ثنائي، وبهذا أستفيد ممَّا تناله من نقدٍ، بل ربما حقَّقتُ بعض التطوير فيها أيضًا؛ أما القَيِّم، فسينجو ويستمر بعد جدالٍ كذاك، وستتوارثه الأجيال دون مجهودٍ أبذله من جانبي، وأما عديم القيمة، فلا طائلَ من ورائه سوى أن يجعلني أبدو كالأبله أمام الأجيال القادمة.
---------------
إنَّ توصيل الأفكار الجديدة — حتى الدنيوي منها كالاتجاهات — يعتمد على التخمين من جانب المرسِل والمستقبِل كليهما، وهو عرضة للخطأ بطبيعة الحال
--------------
تتدفَّقُ المعلومات في الوجود المتعدِّد الأكوان التخيُّلي في صورة شجرةٍ متفرعة، ولكل فرعٍ من فروعها — التواريخ — سُمْك (قياس) مختلف، ولا تتَّحد تلك الفروع بعد انفصال بعضها عن بعض أبدًا. يتصرَّف كل فرعٍ وكأنَّ باقيَ الفروع غير موجودةٍ
بالمرة.
-------------------
نصَّتْ نظريةُ هايزنبرج على أن المتغيِّراتِ الفيزيائيةَ للجسيم ليست ذات قِيَمٍ عددية، بل هي مصفوفات أيْ صفوف عديدة من الأعداد التي ترتبط بنتائج ملاحظات تلك المتغيرات بطرقٍ معقدةٍ ذات طبيعةٍ احتمالية
-------------------
تنتشر الآن حركةٌ فلسفيةٌ نافذةُ التأثيرِ تحت أسماءٍ عدة، منها: ما بعد الحداثة، والتفكيكية، والبنيوية، وتتحدَّد تسميتها تبعًا لتفاصيلَ تاريخيةٍ لا تعنينا ها هنا. تزعم هذه الحركةُ أن كلَّ الأفكار، بما فيها النظرياتُ العلمية، اعتباطية بالضرورة لكونها افتراضيةً غيرَ قابلةٍ للتبرير؛ إنها ليست سوى قصص و تنظر هذه الحركة إلى الصحة والخطأ الموضوعيين — وكذلك إلى الواقع والمعرفة به — على أنهما مجرد قوالبَ تقليديةٍ لألفاظٍ ترمز لتأييد جماعةٍ معينةٍ من الأشخاص — كالنخبة أو الأغلبية — أو صيحةٍ ما أو أيِّ سلطةٍ اعتباطيةٍ أخرى لفكرةٍ ما، ولا يزيد العلم والتنوير في نظرها عن مثل تلك الصيحة، وترى المعرفة الموضوعية التي يزعمها العلم محض غطرسةٍ ثقافيةٍ متعجرفة
-------------------
إن الفلسفة السيئة هي التي تُنكر إمكانيةَ التقدُّم أو الرغبة فيه أو وجوده، والوسيلةُ الفعَّالة الوحيدة لمناهضتها هي إحرازُ التقدُّم. لو كان استمرارُ التقدُّمِ بلا نهايةٍ أمرًا غيرَ ممكن، لَهَيْمَنت الفلسفةُ السيئة مرةً ثانية؛ لأنها ستكون حينئذٍ صحيحة
-----------------
من الكارثي أن يُستخدَم تصويت الأغلبية في العلم مثلًا. يفوق عددُ المنجِّمين عددَ علماء الفلك، وكثيرًا ما يشير المؤمنون بالظواهر الخارقة إلى أن عددَ الشهود المزعومين على تلك الظواهر يفوق كثيرًا عددَ الشهود على أغلب التجارب العلمية؛ وتبعًا لهذا يُطالِبون بمصداقيةٍ تتناسب مع ذلك، إلا أن العلم ينأى بنفسه عن تقييم الأدلة بهذه الطريقة إذ يلتزم بمعيار التفسير الجيد
-------------------
من الخطأ أن نتصوَّر الاختيارَ وصُنْعَ القرار عبارة عن عملية انتقاءٍ من بين خياراتٍ موجودةٍ طبقًا لصيغةٍ محدَّدة. يغفل ذلك أهمَّ عاملٍ في عملية صُنْعِ القرار، أَلَا وهو ابتكار الخيارات الجديدة.
-----------------
إن لدينا نفورًا فطريٍّا من المرتفعات والسقوط، ومع هذا يمارس الناسُ القفزَ بالمظلات، لا رغمًا عن هذا الشعور بل من أجله. إن هذا الشعور الفطري بالنفور هو بالضبط ما يستطيع البشرُ إعادةَ تأويله على صورةٍ أرحب تكون جذَّابةً لهم؛ فهم يريدون المزيدَ منها، ويرغبون في تذوُّقها تذوُّقًا أعمق.
--------------
الثقافة مجموعة من الأفكار التي تجعل معتنقيها يتصرَّفون تصرُّفاتٍ متماثلةً في بعض المناحي , أعني بالأفكار أيَّ معلوماتٍ قابلةٍ للتخزين في عقول البشر، وقادرةٍ على التأثير على سلوكهم
---------------
الثقافات تتغيَّر؛ إذ يُعدِّل الناسُ الأفكارَ الثقافية في أذهانهم، وأحيانًا ما يتناقلون تلك النُّسَخَ المعدَّلة، فلا مناص من حدوث بعض التعديلات بغير عمدٍ كذلك، يقع بعضها نتيجةً للخطأ الصريح، وبعضها لصعوبة توصيل الأفكار غير الصريحة على نحوٍ دقيق؛ فما من سبيلٍ لنقلها مباشَرةً من عقلٍ لآخَر كمثل برامج الكمبيوتر
---------------
يقصُّ الناسُ القصصَ المسلية بعضُهم على بعض؛ منها الخيالي، ومنها الحقيقي. إنها ليست نكاتًا، ولكن بعضها ي��ير ميمات؛ أيْ قصصًا شائقةً بالقدر الكافي لجعْل سامعيها يردِّدونها على مسامعِ آخَرين، وبعض هؤلاء يردِّدونها بدورهم، لكنهم نادرًا ما يتناقلونها على نحوٍ حرفي؛ فلا يحتفظون بكل تفصيلةٍ في محتواها؛ ومن هنا تخرج للوجود نُسَخٌ مختلفة من القصة الدارجة. سيُردَّد بعضُ هذه النسخ أكثر من غيره؛ في بعض الحالات لأن الناس يجدونه مسليٍّا. وعندما يصبح هذا هو السببَ الرئيسيَّ لترديد هذه النُّسَخ، تصبح النُّسَخُ اللاحقة المتداولة أكثرَ تسليةً. وهكذا نجد الظروف مواتيةً للتطوُّر؛ دورات متكررة من النَّسْخ غير المتقن للمعلومات يُبادَل بينها بالانتقاء، فتصبح القصة مع الوقت مسليةً بالقدر الكافي لإضحاك الناس؛ وبهذا تكون نكتةٌ كاملةُ المعالم قد تطوَّرَتْ.
----------------
أوفر الأفكار حظٍّا في الصمود والاستمرار عبر الأجيال العديدة هي الحقائق ذات المدى؛ الحقائق العميقة.
---------------
الناس عرضة للخطأ، وغالبًا ما يُفضِّلون الأفكارَ الباطلة، أو الضحلة، أو غيرَ ذات النفع، أو المعيبةَ أخلاقيٍّا، على أن ما يُفضِّلونه من أفكارٍ باطلةٍ هو ما يختلف من شخصٍ لآخَر، ويتغيَّر بمرور الزمن. قد تستمر حقيقةٌ ضيقةُ الأفق أو أغلوطةٌ خبيثةٌ في البقاء بالصدفة فقط، في ظل ظروفٍ متغيِّرة، لكنْ يُعضِّد الفكرة الحقيقية والعميقة سببٌ موضوعيٌّ كي يضعها الناسُ ذوو التفضيلات المتباينة في مصافِّ الأفكار المفيدة على مدار حِقَبٍ طويلة
----------------
لو اتصف نوعٌ معيَّن من العفاريت بقدرةٍ على إخافة الأطفال، بحيث إذا كبر هؤلاء الأطفال زرعوا في أطفالهم الخوف منه، لَكان سلوكُ قصِّالحكايات عن تلك العفاريت ميمًا. افترِضْ أنه ميم عقلاني ( ميم عقلاني: فكرة تعتمد على المَلَكات النقدية لدى متلقِّيها في إتاحة التناسُخ لنفسها )، سيُلقِي النقدُ إذنْ بظلال الشك على صحة القصة بمرور الأجيال، ولمَّا كانت العفاريتُ غيرَ موجودةٍ على أرضالواقع، فقد ينقرضالميم. لاحِظْ أن الميم لا يهمه أن ينقرض؛ فالميمات تفعل ما يتعيَّن عليها فعله: فلا مقاصد لديها، ولا حتى لأنفسها، ولكن توجد أيضًا سبل أخرى قد تتطوَّر الميماتُ من خلالها. قد تصبح خياليةً على نحوٍ واضح. ولأن الميمات العقلانية يجب أن يراها حاملوها نافعة، تواجه الميمات المثيرة للمشاعر غير السارة مشكلةً في تطوُّرها؛ وعليه قد تتطوَّر مبتعدةً عن إثارة الرعب، مثلًا في اتجاه الشعور الخفيف بالإثارة، أو استكشاف الحلول العملية له في الحاضروالتفاؤل بالمستقبل والآن افترِضْ أنه ميم معادٍ للعقلانية ( ميم معادٍ للعقلانية: فكرةٌ تعتمد على تعطيل المَلَكات النقدية لدى متلقِّيها بغرضِ إتاحة التناسُخ لنفسها. ) ؛ ستفيده عندئذٍ إثارةُ المشاعر غير السارة في تحقيق الضرر المنوط به إلحاقه، وهو تعطيل قدرة المستمع على التحرُّر من العفريت، وترسيخ الإكراه على التفكير فيه؛ ومن ثَمَّ التحدُّث عنه. كلما زادَتْ دقةُ استغلالِ صفات العفريت لمَواطِن ضعف العقل البشري الشائعة، انتشر الميمُ المعادي للعقلانية بدقةٍ أكبر. لو كان للميم أن يبقى لأجيالٍ عدة، لَكان من الضروري أن تكون

[Simon Eskildsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a ride seeing the world through David Deutsch's eyes for 500 pages.
"Infinity" refers to the endless search for explanations, and how each
explanation compounds on others. I especially loved his take on a good
explanation is: one that keeps explaining _beyond_ what it initially set to
explain. A bad explanation is one you keep trying to fit, like a gambler
continuing to up their hands to make back losses (or astrology).

> "It is the ability of some of them to solve problems beyond those that they
> were created to solve. The axis-tilt theory is an example: it was originally
> proposed to explain the changes in the sun’s angle of elevation during each
> year. Combined with a little knowledge of heat and spinning bodies, it then
> explained seasons. And, without any further modification, it also explained
> why seasons are out of phase in the two hemispheres, and why tropical regions
> do not have them, and why the summer sun shines at midnight in polar regions –
> three phenomena of which its creators may well have been unaware." (David
> Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity)

Another phrasing I'll take with me is whether something is _untestable_, which
means a pretty high probability that it's bullshit.

A fascinating thing I find is common among those with a strong rooting in
physics is that they only see what's possible and not possible based on laws of
physics. That's it. Musk tends to talk like that too.

When we talk about "500 pages in Mr. Deutsch's mind, this is the type of thing
you can get accustomed to:

> "What exactly would it come to steal? Gold? Oil? Perhaps our planet’s water?
> Surely not, since any civilization capable of transporting itself here, or raw
> materials back across galactic distances, must already have cheap transmutation
> and hence does not care about the chemical composition of its raw materials. So
> essentially the only resource of use to it in our solar system would be the
> sheer mass of matter in the sun. But matter is available in every star." (David
> Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity)

Probably my all-time favourite line from the book is this one:

> "The Principle of Optimism: All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge."
> (David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity)

A supremely optimistic take that most stress, evil, problems, .. Are caused by
lack of knowledge. Scales down to the mundane: if your toilet leaks, you'll be
aggregated, but if a plumber's toilet leaks, he won't stress much about it
because he knows what to do.

Another mental model that I like is the 'Malthusian prophetic fallacy':

> "we had now reached the physical limit of conspicuous consumption could be
> proved, said my colleague, by analysing the resource constraints scientifically.
> The cathode-ray tubes in colour televisions depended on the element europium to
> make the red phosphors on the screen. Europium is one of the rarest elements on
> Earth. The planet’s total known reserves were only enough to build a few hundred
> million more colour televisions. After that, it would be back to monochrome."
> (David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity)

> "I asked him how he knew that no new source of europium would be discovered. He
> asked how I knew that it would. And, even if it were, what would we do then? I
> asked how he knew that colour cathode-ray tubes could not be built without
> europium. He assured me that they could not: it was a miracle that there existed
> even one element with the necessary properties. After all, why should nature
> supply elements with properties to suit our convenience?" (David Deutsch, The
> Beginning of Infinity)

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Covers nothing to everything"

One of my favorite books and provided me with many insights into our place in the universe and how we know the things we know. Deutsch explains the very small to the very large. He provides a reasonable explanation of the measurement problem in physics and a consistent theory on multiple universes. His survey of different schools of philosophies is one of the best I've read. He even has a detailed chapter on developing the most efficient election process which doesn't fully fit the theme of the book, but he explains it so well it becomes an intriguing chapter.

After reading the book, you will have an appreciation for the infinity and understand what is meant by 'everything possible will happen with certainty".