What do you think?
Rate this book
Tal: A Conversation With an Alien
From the Publisher: The author of this book, who chooses to remain anonymous even to us, submitted this draft and we chose to publish it. The author writes of an encounter they had with a being called 'Tal' who looked human but claimed to be an alien. The author believes that this person was in fact an alien due to the content of their conversation and the events that lead to and followed it. The author requested we divulge no information about the book that could influence the first reading of it. We will reveal, however, that in the conversation, Tal attempts to show the author how a far more advanced life form would observe and function in the universe. Tal does not describe a technological superiority, but an actual perceptual and physical difference that leads to a fundamentally greater understanding of the world. The conversation covers many topics; including time, the perception of extra dimensions, quantum theory, infinity, and consciousness. Tal uses examples from modern scientific theory, ancient religions, alien worlds and even chess. The author wished to publish this book because they felt that this encounter dramatically changed their life.
148 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 16, 2012
118 people are currently reading
475 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 2, 2013
A great book challenges your perception of the world and this certainly qualifies. I consider this to be the long awaited sequel to Flatland. Claiming to be an actual conversation with an alien definitely limits the audience. I could not convince my daughter to read it (yet) even though she is quite interested in, and eager to discuss, quantum mechanics, multiple dimensions, and theories of time travel. Perhaps it is just a device used by the author to jar us a little bit to open our minds so that we are better able to think about the concepts he presents. Whatever the reason, don't let thoughts about whether or not aliens exist stop you from reading the book - it doesn't affect the stimulating ideas presented. The author puts cutting edge scientific theories together in a very understandable and fun story. A stimulating read. I know that my daughter will eventually read it an we will have a great discussion.
January 29, 2013
Cross Posted From Amazon:
"Now I am curious about things I didn't think to be curious about before. It makes me smile knowing that Looney Tunes sparked my interest in classical music (was my first exposure really) and this book, along with the Big Bang Theory on TBS, introduced me to physics and sparked my curiosity into exploring further...inside and out. :-D:-D:-D. Thank you. :-)"
I had to read this slow. (most of my stuff I gobble up in a night lololol) But this I would read bits each night before bed and put it down when I was afraid I couldn't keep it straight in my brain (I kept daydreaming about the concepts mixed with holding onto the story and trying to open my mind to see everything I could of what was going on there). Sleeping on it turned out neat too because I would dream the most amazing dreams and the concepts were more clear to me the next day.
It really is time I read this again.
<3
Sincerely,
Schelmy
"Now I am curious about things I didn't think to be curious about before. It makes me smile knowing that Looney Tunes sparked my interest in classical music (was my first exposure really) and this book, along with the Big Bang Theory on TBS, introduced me to physics and sparked my curiosity into exploring further...inside and out. :-D:-D:-D. Thank you. :-)"
I had to read this slow. (most of my stuff I gobble up in a night lololol) But this I would read bits each night before bed and put it down when I was afraid I couldn't keep it straight in my brain (I kept daydreaming about the concepts mixed with holding onto the story and trying to open my mind to see everything I could of what was going on there). Sleeping on it turned out neat too because I would dream the most amazing dreams and the concepts were more clear to me the next day.
It really is time I read this again.
<3
Sincerely,
Schelmy
February 5, 2013
Highly thought provoking book. I enjoyed it so much. Highly philosophical. Gave me a brief insight into the possible dimensions that we don't tend to perceive in this bodily form. However, I think I will pass on drinking cherry juice.
June 5, 2013
I won this book in a first-reads giveaway.
This is the longest review I have written to date so I put a TLDR statement at the end.
Tal is a conversation with an alien. The stated purpose of the book was that Tal's arguments would somehow give us a clearer understanding of the nature of the universe. It does no such thing.
He begins by arguing that although the scientific method has led to a tremendous amount of progress it's fundamental flaws lead us away from the truths about the universe. Here the author makes a huge mistake born of a misunderstanding of what science actually is and it's purpose. He calls it a religion in which scientists are the high priests and universities and other such institutions are the churches. He argues that scientists quibble among themselves. He also poo-poo's the fact that if an idea is only repeatable 5% of the time scientists will discard the idea. The first is assertion is flat out false, the other two are sort of true but not in the sense that the author means.
A religion is a set of dogma based on the tenets or revelations handed down by a prophet, guru, or other such figure. Science has no dogma, no tenets. The only revelations are through careful study or experimentation and put through the peer review process. This brings up the second point that scientists argue among themselves. Yes they do exactly that. It is intentional and is called the peer review process. Scientist A comes up with a hypothesis, tests it, writes it up, then sends it to his colleagues, scientists B,C,D, and E. All four colleagues do their best to punch holes in Scientist A's argument and methodology. Scientist A receives his colleagues feedback and alters his methodology and arguments until B,C,D, and E are satisfied. Through this process scientist A's argument is all the stronger and at that point A can submit his findings in article form to a scientific journal. This is not a weakness of science, it is it's greatest strength. That Tal does not mention the peer review process as a part of his criticism of science tells me he does not understand science. Finally that ideas are discarded at a 95% failure rate is right on. In fact you need to run a statistical analysis to demonstrate a statistically significant success rate to pass peer review. Otherwise you may as well not submit it and move to the next hypothesis.
Let's look at science as dogma. Let's say scientist A's findings overturn a well established theory like the biological theory of evolution. Yes he will receive a lot of resistance when first introducing his findings, but if they hold to be true he stands to be held up as one of the greatest scientists of his generation. Not only would he win the Nobel prize but would also be offered limitless grant money from any number of institutions to continue his work. Not only do scientists not do their work in an effort to uphold some sort of dogma but they also have a huge incentive to turn over the current understanding of their chosen field.
Tal moves on from this criticism and in the intervening chapters up to the conclusion lists several concepts from physics, psychology, biology, and philosophy all with the purpose of showing us that our reckoning of the universe is limited by what we can perceive. Much to my chagrin the entire point of this book was so that the author can lead us down the primrose path to a "God of the Gaps" argument. That's right folks. We can't see the infinitude of multiverses limiting our understanding, therefore there must be a God to fill that understanding. Excepting Pascal's Wager I personally consider the God of the Gaps argument to be the weakest argument for the existence of God. As science progresses the gaps get fewer and smaller. We know that lightening is not Zeus attempting to kill those who displeased him. We know that the Solar System is heliocentric. We know that time is relative. I have heard arguments that we will never fill all of the gaps or that the gaps will only get smaller and never truly filled. The first argument is a bald assertion about the future that can't be demonstrated. The second is to evoke Zeno's Dichotomy paradox that states in order to get from point A to point B one has to travel halfway first. In order to get to the halfway point you have to reach the 1/4 point, then the 1/8 point, and so on. By that argument you would never get there. By assigning point A to my chair and point B to the door, I can demonstrate this as wrong by simply getting up and going to the door.
In my junior year of college I took an English class simply called "Fantasy." In it we read Fantasy themed books and were asked to make arguments based on what we read. I learned for the first time in my life how to make an effective argument. Before that I had taken classes on modern logic, science, and exposition. All of these involved argumentation, but it was not until I implemented the two pieces of advice the funny little professor who taught the class gave us that I started consistently getting A's on nearly every term paper. One was to start with your assertion or thesis. Then make an argument, not a list. So goes my advice for the author. The book should have started with God exists because... Not with concept 1,2,3, and 4, therefore God exists.
To be clear I do not believe that God exists and once made it a hobby to seek out forums or videos online to find arguments for His existence. I stopped largely because when somebody claims to have a new argument for the existence of God it is always a variation on a previous argument with the same flaws.
Absolutely not recommended for anybody.
TLDR; This book argues for the existence of God and does so poorly.
This is the longest review I have written to date so I put a TLDR statement at the end.
Tal is a conversation with an alien. The stated purpose of the book was that Tal's arguments would somehow give us a clearer understanding of the nature of the universe. It does no such thing.
He begins by arguing that although the scientific method has led to a tremendous amount of progress it's fundamental flaws lead us away from the truths about the universe. Here the author makes a huge mistake born of a misunderstanding of what science actually is and it's purpose. He calls it a religion in which scientists are the high priests and universities and other such institutions are the churches. He argues that scientists quibble among themselves. He also poo-poo's the fact that if an idea is only repeatable 5% of the time scientists will discard the idea. The first is assertion is flat out false, the other two are sort of true but not in the sense that the author means.
A religion is a set of dogma based on the tenets or revelations handed down by a prophet, guru, or other such figure. Science has no dogma, no tenets. The only revelations are through careful study or experimentation and put through the peer review process. This brings up the second point that scientists argue among themselves. Yes they do exactly that. It is intentional and is called the peer review process. Scientist A comes up with a hypothesis, tests it, writes it up, then sends it to his colleagues, scientists B,C,D, and E. All four colleagues do their best to punch holes in Scientist A's argument and methodology. Scientist A receives his colleagues feedback and alters his methodology and arguments until B,C,D, and E are satisfied. Through this process scientist A's argument is all the stronger and at that point A can submit his findings in article form to a scientific journal. This is not a weakness of science, it is it's greatest strength. That Tal does not mention the peer review process as a part of his criticism of science tells me he does not understand science. Finally that ideas are discarded at a 95% failure rate is right on. In fact you need to run a statistical analysis to demonstrate a statistically significant success rate to pass peer review. Otherwise you may as well not submit it and move to the next hypothesis.
Let's look at science as dogma. Let's say scientist A's findings overturn a well established theory like the biological theory of evolution. Yes he will receive a lot of resistance when first introducing his findings, but if they hold to be true he stands to be held up as one of the greatest scientists of his generation. Not only would he win the Nobel prize but would also be offered limitless grant money from any number of institutions to continue his work. Not only do scientists not do their work in an effort to uphold some sort of dogma but they also have a huge incentive to turn over the current understanding of their chosen field.
Tal moves on from this criticism and in the intervening chapters up to the conclusion lists several concepts from physics, psychology, biology, and philosophy all with the purpose of showing us that our reckoning of the universe is limited by what we can perceive. Much to my chagrin the entire point of this book was so that the author can lead us down the primrose path to a "God of the Gaps" argument. That's right folks. We can't see the infinitude of multiverses limiting our understanding, therefore there must be a God to fill that understanding. Excepting Pascal's Wager I personally consider the God of the Gaps argument to be the weakest argument for the existence of God. As science progresses the gaps get fewer and smaller. We know that lightening is not Zeus attempting to kill those who displeased him. We know that the Solar System is heliocentric. We know that time is relative. I have heard arguments that we will never fill all of the gaps or that the gaps will only get smaller and never truly filled. The first argument is a bald assertion about the future that can't be demonstrated. The second is to evoke Zeno's Dichotomy paradox that states in order to get from point A to point B one has to travel halfway first. In order to get to the halfway point you have to reach the 1/4 point, then the 1/8 point, and so on. By that argument you would never get there. By assigning point A to my chair and point B to the door, I can demonstrate this as wrong by simply getting up and going to the door.
In my junior year of college I took an English class simply called "Fantasy." In it we read Fantasy themed books and were asked to make arguments based on what we read. I learned for the first time in my life how to make an effective argument. Before that I had taken classes on modern logic, science, and exposition. All of these involved argumentation, but it was not until I implemented the two pieces of advice the funny little professor who taught the class gave us that I started consistently getting A's on nearly every term paper. One was to start with your assertion or thesis. Then make an argument, not a list. So goes my advice for the author. The book should have started with God exists because... Not with concept 1,2,3, and 4, therefore God exists.
To be clear I do not believe that God exists and once made it a hobby to seek out forums or videos online to find arguments for His existence. I stopped largely because when somebody claims to have a new argument for the existence of God it is always a variation on a previous argument with the same flaws.
Absolutely not recommended for anybody.
TLDR; This book argues for the existence of God and does so poorly.
August 4, 2013
I first submitted a mildly negative review for this book. My problem was the book I read was rather poorly written on a technical basis. It had misspellings, problems with syntax and some rather tortured language. I found that I had gotten a very early copy and one that slipped through without a rigorous edit. I have since gotten a newer copy and there is enough difference to warrant a revised review. Hence my revised review follows:
This is one of my favorite authors. I have read many things by Anonymous. Beowulf, The Pearl, The Autobiography of a Flea, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Arabian Nights: Tales From 1001 Nights, even the Bible and The Quran, all by my favorite author, Anonymous. I think I like this one also.
Let's start with the story. It was not bad and it is even unique in some ways. The premise was very fresh. The content was also fresh. It involves a discussion between a man and an alien. Initially, it involves a discussion of how differences in perception frame how we view our world. All sentient creatures have a unique view of their world based on their senses of perception. This narrative goes through the nature of science, physics (The quantum type), physics (The Newtonian type), perception, philosophy, psychology and a schemer of religion.
The story shows an interesting perspective, it gives a context to discuss complex and at times controversial topics."TAL" developed the characters so that they were interesting and believable within the parameters of the story. The dialogue was constructed so that one idea blended into the next without the characters having to engage any unlikely antics to move the story line. That in itself is hard to do at all let alone well. There were essentially two characters and that spare cast of characters allowed a very concise dialectic without becoming polarized or argumentative. The author used some of the classic examples of illustrating hard to visualize concepts but with personal bent. I thought it worked.
The story was interesting, but I cannot say I agree with all of it or even understand all of it. But, if you follow physics, chemistry, cosmology, even as a layman you will recognize that the conversations in the "TAL" are the same ones in the various fields of science, philosophy, math, quantum mechanics and so forth. As an informed layman I believe I kept up well and found the information believable.
I have also looked at some of the other reviews. I understand if the story was not interesting. No story can be favored by everyone. I personally will never understand why people read 'Ulysses' let alone claim to enjoy it. But in at least one case a scathing review held the story to task for not adhering to the rigorous standards of scientific protocol. The story was scientifically invalid and provably so. It also used poorly constructed logical arguments for some of the philosophical arguments. Finally, the criticism is made that the author it did not clearly state that the book was fiction.
I on the other hand did not assume that the book was fact. If it had been then it should be judged as a non-fiction piece of work. But that is clearly not the case and fiction allows the author to adjust, modify hard and fast fact to advance a story. I would not expect the book to uphold every tenant of an academic piece of work. I was not disappointed by the story being fiction.
I very much liked this story and if there is another by this author I intend to read it.
This is one of my favorite authors. I have read many things by Anonymous. Beowulf, The Pearl, The Autobiography of a Flea, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Arabian Nights: Tales From 1001 Nights, even the Bible and The Quran, all by my favorite author, Anonymous. I think I like this one also.
Let's start with the story. It was not bad and it is even unique in some ways. The premise was very fresh. The content was also fresh. It involves a discussion between a man and an alien. Initially, it involves a discussion of how differences in perception frame how we view our world. All sentient creatures have a unique view of their world based on their senses of perception. This narrative goes through the nature of science, physics (The quantum type), physics (The Newtonian type), perception, philosophy, psychology and a schemer of religion.
The story shows an interesting perspective, it gives a context to discuss complex and at times controversial topics."TAL" developed the characters so that they were interesting and believable within the parameters of the story. The dialogue was constructed so that one idea blended into the next without the characters having to engage any unlikely antics to move the story line. That in itself is hard to do at all let alone well. There were essentially two characters and that spare cast of characters allowed a very concise dialectic without becoming polarized or argumentative. The author used some of the classic examples of illustrating hard to visualize concepts but with personal bent. I thought it worked.
The story was interesting, but I cannot say I agree with all of it or even understand all of it. But, if you follow physics, chemistry, cosmology, even as a layman you will recognize that the conversations in the "TAL" are the same ones in the various fields of science, philosophy, math, quantum mechanics and so forth. As an informed layman I believe I kept up well and found the information believable.
I have also looked at some of the other reviews. I understand if the story was not interesting. No story can be favored by everyone. I personally will never understand why people read 'Ulysses' let alone claim to enjoy it. But in at least one case a scathing review held the story to task for not adhering to the rigorous standards of scientific protocol. The story was scientifically invalid and provably so. It also used poorly constructed logical arguments for some of the philosophical arguments. Finally, the criticism is made that the author it did not clearly state that the book was fiction.
I on the other hand did not assume that the book was fact. If it had been then it should be judged as a non-fiction piece of work. But that is clearly not the case and fiction allows the author to adjust, modify hard and fast fact to advance a story. I would not expect the book to uphold every tenant of an academic piece of work. I was not disappointed by the story being fiction.
I very much liked this story and if there is another by this author I intend to read it.
June 5, 2013
If you don't have a math and/or science background, this book is not for you. I do not and thus am bogged down in scientific notions that I don't know are true or not. I do know that part of the enjoyment from this book must be to argue with the author whether they are possible or probable. I cannot do this.
Having said that, I must say I enjoyed the writer's style of story-telling. I hope he writes more books, but ones that I can intellectually understand. I will continue to read this book because I want to see if he's putting me on and because I do enjoy the bits of life philosophies he inserts. I wish he had stuck to these. Also, I want to find out if Anonymous identifies himself at the end.
I won this First Reads Book at Goodreads.com and I am glad I did. It certainly brought me outside my usual reading comfort zone, which is one reason I enter the Goodreads' giveaways.
Marilyn Sultar
Having said that, I must say I enjoyed the writer's style of story-telling. I hope he writes more books, but ones that I can intellectually understand. I will continue to read this book because I want to see if he's putting me on and because I do enjoy the bits of life philosophies he inserts. I wish he had stuck to these. Also, I want to find out if Anonymous identifies himself at the end.
I won this First Reads Book at Goodreads.com and I am glad I did. It certainly brought me outside my usual reading comfort zone, which is one reason I enter the Goodreads' giveaways.
Marilyn Sultar
November 15, 2014
This is one of the best books that I have ever read. It presents complex scientific and philosophical ideas in a way which can be easily understood. The overall premise of the book is brilliant, I absolutely loved the book! It has plenty of thought-provoking discussions, which makes this a very interesting read.
August 15, 2012
This was an interesting bit of philosophy which I particularly enjoyed.
Kind of a cross between Mindwalk and What the Bleep - with a liberal dose of Einstein thrown in.
I'm not convinced it's an actual account of an Alien visitation - but it's certainly worth the read.
Recommended.
Kind of a cross between Mindwalk and What the Bleep - with a liberal dose of Einstein thrown in.
I'm not convinced it's an actual account of an Alien visitation - but it's certainly worth the read.
Recommended.
July 6, 2013
What an interesting read:) It had a nice inscription from the author since it was a first-reads giveaway! I like the possibility that there is something out there and this book made it seem like a reality.
June 3, 2013
An intresting read. Highly philosophical and heavy on the math and scientific fact. So a fair warning to those who like science fiction but not so much on science fact. Worth a re-read since much of it is a bit heavy.
May 28, 2020
Herm... So yes, first I bought the conceit that this an alien interview. That’s why I picked it up, totally on a whim. I’ve been reading about belief in conspiracies & how that works psycho-socially. I didn’t get far into this. The cherry juice thing was dumb, and the narrator’s demeanor implausible. So then right away into the cryptic philosophizing... I’m not opposed to that, and have interest in all the topics. It’s just dreadfully dull. The concept reminds me of Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, which I found deeply profound (20 years ago at least). So I know there are cool ideas in Tal but I just don’t think it’s worth the slog. Life’s too short to read bad books...
August 27, 2020
A for effort
Well written - but content not that great. I hope that if I get to talk to a 100,000 year old alien he doesn’t spend eighty percent of his time rehashing human-known high school level physics ( relativity and quantum theory) and a splash of neuroscience. The bit about him perceiving multi valued realities was a bit interesting. If he starts taking of observer created reality, consciousness and quantum mechanics I’ll know for sure he’s a fake because even us humans have known for at least thirty years that all of that is just a load of embarrassing nonsense.
Well written - but content not that great. I hope that if I get to talk to a 100,000 year old alien he doesn’t spend eighty percent of his time rehashing human-known high school level physics ( relativity and quantum theory) and a splash of neuroscience. The bit about him perceiving multi valued realities was a bit interesting. If he starts taking of observer created reality, consciousness and quantum mechanics I’ll know for sure he’s a fake because even us humans have known for at least thirty years that all of that is just a load of embarrassing nonsense.
April 18, 2018
Enjoyable and thought provoking, Fiction that teaches
Although the story is fiction the examples and questions asked are excellent examples of though provoking logic tied to excellent examples to make a point of explain a concept. One of the most enjoyable recent reads I have had. Packed with so many details and information that a second read is definitely warranted. Entertainment with education a combination that cannot be beat.
Although the story is fiction the examples and questions asked are excellent examples of though provoking logic tied to excellent examples to make a point of explain a concept. One of the most enjoyable recent reads I have had. Packed with so many details and information that a second read is definitely warranted. Entertainment with education a combination that cannot be beat.
October 7, 2017
Don't get hung up on the alien aspect. You'll miss the point.
This book is superb in insight and information for those seeking to better understand their world. Science and philosophy presented with skill and humor.
I found myself chuckling while reading about quantum physics. Imagine that.
Why the 4 rating? Cause some concepts were had to grasp and/over my head. I'll re-read this book so to hopefully better understand.
This book is superb in insight and information for those seeking to better understand their world. Science and philosophy presented with skill and humor.
I found myself chuckling while reading about quantum physics. Imagine that.
Why the 4 rating? Cause some concepts were had to grasp and/over my head. I'll re-read this book so to hopefully better understand.
March 6, 2022
Great book!
I found this book eye opening and insightful. Having read two accounts now from aliens, I am hopeful to read or view more. Thank you.
I found this book eye opening and insightful. Having read two accounts now from aliens, I am hopeful to read or view more. Thank you.
November 6, 2022
This book is wonderful and thought provoking. Easy explanations on complex discussions.
January 19, 2014
Uh... nope,
If it opens an interest in people who haven't really delved into this type of science then GREAT! Hence forth, worthy of one star. For others who already know even the most basic of all things quantum you'll lose interest and time but may stick it out because, dammit you're not a quitter! Half assed attempt, any and whatever attempts were intended, over all IMO
AUTHOR MESSAGED ME DUE TO MY ONE STAR REVIEW
Hello Alina,
I am writing you because I noticed that you read the book and posted negative reviews in several places, most notably amazon and goodreads. I am not asking you to change your opinion, but would like to make a request of you, and offer a small defense, not of the content of the book but of the premise.
I appreciate that, judging from your review, you read the entire book. I am disappointed that you were bored by it, however, since much of the first half of the book is an explanation of basic QM concepts I can understand that this may happen. I my defense this book was not intended as an advanced science book. In fact if you look at the search categories the book is under, it is under fiction and philosophy. I specifically did not place the book in the science section because the intent of the book was entertainment and to teach basic QM concepts and their philosophical ramifications. I understand some of the reviews by others do talk about how it presents QM concepts in different or interesting ways, but it was not my intention that this book be for people with extremely advanced knowledge, in fact at the introduction I even say exactly this: that people with this knowledge my find the parts of the book redundant.
This does not excuse you being bored however, and I respect your opinion. Thus my request is not that you change your review, only that perhaps you would consider adjusting the 1 star rating. For an independently published book that does not have an army of 5 star reviewers provided by a large publisher, a single 1 star rating can be extremely harmful (for instance prior to your review the book had 3.8 stars and qualified for the 4 star search. Now it dropped to 3.7 and no longer qualifies. This is hundreds of searches and readers lost) You wrote yourself that the book would be helpful as an intro to QM and you can see by others' reviews that many people found it thus helpful. 1 star is the lowest rating you can possibly give on Amazon. I would just ask that you could temper this slightly. Sometimes a book just isn’t for you for many reasons, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be rated as the worst possible book one can read. One reader, who gave a three star rating to the book had a review very similar to yours, though exactly the opposite: It was too complicated for her: It wasn’t for me, she wrote, but perhaps others might like it, and thus this reader gave it a middle rating (3 stars). This tact provides an opinion but doesn’t harm the book so directly, and this is what I would ask of you.
Finally, I would recommend that you request a refund from amazon, as they refund ebook purchases if you don’t like the book no questions asked. If you received this book in one of the giveaways for free, then I hope you can return the favor of receiving a book that took a very long time to create, that was given to you for free by not giving it such a low star rating as to significantly hurt it.
Good luck in your further reading and don't give up on us indie author's, also, if you are interested in a more advanced discussion of Many Worlds check out this link of David Deutsch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjV9SU...
Sincerely,
A.
WHAT I WROTE IN RESPONSE
Ted, Bob, A, Whomever it does concern,
You obviously need to do more thorough research and pay closer attention to the falsity your own brain concocts. Two reviews on goodreads, only one being a one star, yours. I have also posted a total of 3 one star reviews for books on Amazon, yours being one and all well deserving because it is my opinion after all, in my review. Your passive aggressive plea obviously did not go unnoticed by me or the other one star reviewers. I'm no pro but I know what I like and what I don't. The repetitive story, the obvious one voice executing it all over and over and over...People would be better off watching the science channel or any SCI-FI movie. Keep practicing and take the criticism as a learning tool then apply it to your future endeavors. I look forward to reading your stories not yet told.
Take Care,
The real A
If it opens an interest in people who haven't really delved into this type of science then GREAT! Hence forth, worthy of one star. For others who already know even the most basic of all things quantum you'll lose interest and time but may stick it out because, dammit you're not a quitter! Half assed attempt, any and whatever attempts were intended, over all IMO
AUTHOR MESSAGED ME DUE TO MY ONE STAR REVIEW
Hello Alina,
I am writing you because I noticed that you read the book and posted negative reviews in several places, most notably amazon and goodreads. I am not asking you to change your opinion, but would like to make a request of you, and offer a small defense, not of the content of the book but of the premise.
I appreciate that, judging from your review, you read the entire book. I am disappointed that you were bored by it, however, since much of the first half of the book is an explanation of basic QM concepts I can understand that this may happen. I my defense this book was not intended as an advanced science book. In fact if you look at the search categories the book is under, it is under fiction and philosophy. I specifically did not place the book in the science section because the intent of the book was entertainment and to teach basic QM concepts and their philosophical ramifications. I understand some of the reviews by others do talk about how it presents QM concepts in different or interesting ways, but it was not my intention that this book be for people with extremely advanced knowledge, in fact at the introduction I even say exactly this: that people with this knowledge my find the parts of the book redundant.
This does not excuse you being bored however, and I respect your opinion. Thus my request is not that you change your review, only that perhaps you would consider adjusting the 1 star rating. For an independently published book that does not have an army of 5 star reviewers provided by a large publisher, a single 1 star rating can be extremely harmful (for instance prior to your review the book had 3.8 stars and qualified for the 4 star search. Now it dropped to 3.7 and no longer qualifies. This is hundreds of searches and readers lost) You wrote yourself that the book would be helpful as an intro to QM and you can see by others' reviews that many people found it thus helpful. 1 star is the lowest rating you can possibly give on Amazon. I would just ask that you could temper this slightly. Sometimes a book just isn’t for you for many reasons, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be rated as the worst possible book one can read. One reader, who gave a three star rating to the book had a review very similar to yours, though exactly the opposite: It was too complicated for her: It wasn’t for me, she wrote, but perhaps others might like it, and thus this reader gave it a middle rating (3 stars). This tact provides an opinion but doesn’t harm the book so directly, and this is what I would ask of you.
Finally, I would recommend that you request a refund from amazon, as they refund ebook purchases if you don’t like the book no questions asked. If you received this book in one of the giveaways for free, then I hope you can return the favor of receiving a book that took a very long time to create, that was given to you for free by not giving it such a low star rating as to significantly hurt it.
Good luck in your further reading and don't give up on us indie author's, also, if you are interested in a more advanced discussion of Many Worlds check out this link of David Deutsch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjV9SU...
Sincerely,
A.
WHAT I WROTE IN RESPONSE
Ted, Bob, A, Whomever it does concern,
You obviously need to do more thorough research and pay closer attention to the falsity your own brain concocts. Two reviews on goodreads, only one being a one star, yours. I have also posted a total of 3 one star reviews for books on Amazon, yours being one and all well deserving because it is my opinion after all, in my review. Your passive aggressive plea obviously did not go unnoticed by me or the other one star reviewers. I'm no pro but I know what I like and what I don't. The repetitive story, the obvious one voice executing it all over and over and over...People would be better off watching the science channel or any SCI-FI movie. Keep practicing and take the criticism as a learning tool then apply it to your future endeavors. I look forward to reading your stories not yet told.
Take Care,
The real A
July 28, 2013
I received the book for free through Goodreads First Reads. One of the things I enjoy about entering the giveaways is that I often enter things I'm wouldn't normally pick up at the library or a bookstore. Sometimes I find a real gem. Sometimes I do not.
After reading this book I am left wondering why the author bothered. I feel as though he was trying to make a point or to encourage the reader to reach a conclusion based on the conversations of the two characters in the book. Maybe I'm just dense but I never did reach any conclusion. Mostly I'm left wondering what I just read.
I also feel rather like if I were in a similar situation as the narrator and confronted with an alien in my apartment, I'm not really sure I would spend our time together encouraging a rather esoteric conversation about quantum physics and how it proves that there is more to the world than I can comprehend. Dude, I'm cool with that. So what kind of food do you eat on your planet?
Anyway, I felt like a lot of the arguments were faulty and many of them were pointless if humans won't ever be able to understand these things anyway and if this all was a lead up to trying to prove there might be a God it was a long winded and boring way to get there.
Definitely not something I would have bothered to finish if it weren't for the fact I felt obligated to review it.
After reading this book I am left wondering why the author bothered. I feel as though he was trying to make a point or to encourage the reader to reach a conclusion based on the conversations of the two characters in the book. Maybe I'm just dense but I never did reach any conclusion. Mostly I'm left wondering what I just read.
I also feel rather like if I were in a similar situation as the narrator and confronted with an alien in my apartment, I'm not really sure I would spend our time together encouraging a rather esoteric conversation about quantum physics and how it proves that there is more to the world than I can comprehend. Dude, I'm cool with that. So what kind of food do you eat on your planet?
Anyway, I felt like a lot of the arguments were faulty and many of them were pointless if humans won't ever be able to understand these things anyway and if this all was a lead up to trying to prove there might be a God it was a long winded and boring way to get there.
Definitely not something I would have bothered to finish if it weren't for the fact I felt obligated to review it.
July 7, 2013
This was a GoodReads giveaway.
From the title I expected a story similar to K-Pak. In some respects it was, but it turned into a discussion of our expectations of current scientific theory. It is thought provoking. Many of the concepts you have seen in various sci-fi themed stories. It all takes place in a brief evening conversation. It reads just as fast. I recommend this story. It brings out the nerd in me. I will be re-reading this tale after a break, to get the most benefit from it.
From the title I expected a story similar to K-Pak. In some respects it was, but it turned into a discussion of our expectations of current scientific theory. It is thought provoking. Many of the concepts you have seen in various sci-fi themed stories. It all takes place in a brief evening conversation. It reads just as fast. I recommend this story. It brings out the nerd in me. I will be re-reading this tale after a break, to get the most benefit from it.
September 2, 2013
The pretense about a conversation with an alien seems unnecessary, but it is hard to interest the populace in a philosophical treatise! Touches on many modern physic concepts and popular experiments and attempts to place them in a meaningful framework.
Very thought provoking. But be warned, dense! Unless you keep somewhat abreast of current science, a lot of this will be lost. Worth the time if you love ideas.
Very thought provoking. But be warned, dense! Unless you keep somewhat abreast of current science, a lot of this will be lost. Worth the time if you love ideas.
June 7, 2013
I won this book in a first-reads giveaway.
First, let me say it was a very interesting read. Personally, the only way I could really get into the book and finish it was to look at it as a fictional conversation with an alien and to not take it so seriously. If you do take this book seriously there are a lot of holes and questionable arguments that the author presents the reader.
First, let me say it was a very interesting read. Personally, the only way I could really get into the book and finish it was to look at it as a fictional conversation with an alien and to not take it so seriously. If you do take this book seriously there are a lot of holes and questionable arguments that the author presents the reader.
June 2, 2013
First off, if you are not into science or math or consider yourself of slightly above average intelligence, this book is not for you. With that said, it is very thought provoking and an entertaining read.
June 4, 2013
Interesting perspective. Not one I would agree with and overall a bit of a dry read. Let's just say it did not convince me and leave it at that. Don't want any controversial arguments here.
*Won From Goodreads Giveaway*
*Won From Goodreads Giveaway*
October 25, 2012
Tal Conversation with an Alien was an entertaining read that delved into the mysteries of the universe.
January 17, 2013
Don't waste your time, a terrible book.
November 24, 2013
This was an entertaining and humorous philosophical SF story. :)
August 25, 2015
A thought provoking book that interlaces science and philosophy beautifully!
February 13, 2013
Read it.
March 4, 2014
I dig... you dig?
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews