This was a fairly deep investigation of the nature of the infinite. Much like the infinite, the book offered finite descriptions of that which is truly Infinite. There are some genuine insights on the nature of sets, different sizes of infinity, together with interesting paradoxes and puzzles.
If you have already read Godel Escher Bach, then you can skip this book since it covers the same topics but describes them with more technical jargon.
Some quotes I enjoyed:
-God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.”
-By the classic work of the logician Thoralf Skolem, we know that for any finite description of N one might come up with, there will be a different set N* that also satisfies the description. So it is quite literally true that what is really meant by the “…” is inexpressible
-In Cantor’s words, “A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One
-It would seem, in particular, that God should be able to form a precise mental image of Himself. Insofar as the Mindscape is God’s mind, what I am saying is that one of the objects in the Mindscape should be the Mindscape itself.
-In terms of rational thoughts, the Absolute is unthinkable. There is no non-circular way to reach it from below. Any real knowledge of the Absolute must be mystical, if indeed such a thing as mystical knowledge is possible
-As long as I identify with my body and my rational mind, I cannot conceive of my u 0 ; but it is not hard to envision my u 0 if I identify with the Absolute. This does not lead to the usual type-theoretic regress, because someone who is merged with the Absolute is in a position to “name” each and every natural number at once.
-No finite system can generate arbitrarily complex patterns. No finite system can understand everything. No finite system can define truth.
-Man will never know the final secret of the universe.
-It should be possible to form a complete theory of human behavior, i.e., to predict from the hereditary and environmental givens what a person will do. However, if a mischievous person learns of this theory, he can act in a way so as to negate it. Hence I conclude that such a theory exists, but that no mischievous person will learn of it.
-There is no contradiction between free will and knowing in advance precisely what one will do. If one knows oneself completely then this is the situation. One does not deliberately do the opposite of what one wants.”