A Certain Ambiguity is the story of certain young man spending some time in college, feeling confused about his future prospects, torn between pragmatism and passion. He listens to some jazz, he finds a young miss, he takes a course on Set Theory, and he reads old correspondence from mathematicians, including the court transcripts in which his grandfather argued with a Christian judge about the nature of certainty.
The narrative is whatever, it’s just a vehicle to explore certain math and philosophy topics.
Basically, the book has some Set Theory (the math of infinity) and also some geometry, particularly the evolution from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and all the angsty uncertainty along the way.
Your average human being doesn’t know a postulate from a pustule, so the book will have a limited audience.
However, I - who love and teach math - am among that audience, so the math side of this book was both business and pleasure. I taught myself tensor calculus one summer, so I’ve explored certain topics of non-Euclidean geometry. But I really only did so in order to learn General Relativity. I didn’t bother with its historical development. So I quite enjoyed doing so now, and, if nothing else, knowing the history shows me how my occasional uncertainty and doubt in understanding the math were mirrored by the very creators of that math.
As for the philosophy… meh. It’s all about certainty. It’s all about Rene Descartes’ motivation in penning his famous, “Cogito ergo sum”: I am thinking, therefore I exist.
Don’t get me wrong, this is an important topic. Before I conceded the impossibility of the task, my original review was a much lengthier mini-primer on the topic.
It’s just, honestly, the topic bores me now. I’ve studied Hume’s Problem of Induction; Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem; the many forms of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; the No-Cloning Theorem; etc. The heuristic nature of human decision making and the distinction between possibility and probability are important topics that not nearly enough people know appreciate.
But, again I, personally, find it boring. Childish actually. So this facet of the book was a bit aggravating. I mean, the book’s philosophical exploration ends with the concession that absolute certainty is impossible. So… the first and easiest step on a much longer, more interesting philosophical journey.
In short, The good: math. The bad: philosophy. The neutral: narrative. And never forget, God hates idiots, also.