Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits

by John D. Barrow

Astronomer John Barrow takes an intriguing look at the limits of science, who argues that there are things that are ultimately unknowable, undoable, or unreachable.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Physics, Mathematics, Popular Science, Reference

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

John D. Barrow was a professor of mathematical sciences and director of the Millennium Mathematics Project at Cambridge University and a Fellow of the Royal Society.

He was awarded the 2006 Templeton Prize for "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities" for his "writings about the relationship between life and the universe, and the nature of human understanding [which] have created new perspectives on questions of ultimate concern to science and religion".

He was a member of a United Reformed Church, which he described as teaching "a traditional deistic picture of the universe".

Reviews

[Ousama Bziker · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are into science/philosophy and want to know about the universe, this book is for you. If you sit in a spot at home or on the train just by yourself and keep asking metaphysical questions and how the world of science works, this is for you as well. If you are living your life aimlessly without rehearsing it at the end of the day, this is, absolutely, not for you. You will find this book boring and irrelevant. It is actually a matter of interest. This book made me lift my head up in the sky and keep thinking how the stars were born and how we look so small, and that science itself is so small to know everything about the creation of the earth, let alone the Milky Way. This book stresses the idea that science has limits, and that science cannot answer all the unanswered questions out there. It is worth reading, really!

[Simon Mcleish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally published on my blog here in April 2000.

In what is almost a response to John Horgan's The End of Science, Barrow examines the limitations of scientific thought from several different points of view with the aim of working out what science can say about what it cannot say. He skims quickly over some of the problems Horgan talks about, such as the increasing economic cost of scientific experimentation; these limitations are not scientific in nature (non-scientific events such as a change of government may change their nature) and there is little that can be said about them beyond acknowledging their existence.

Barrow is far more interested in the limitations inherent in modern scientific theories, such as the impossibility of knowing what happens outside the edge of the visible universe. He concentrates on the less well known ideas, rather than ploughing once again the well worn furrow of the popular account of relativity and quantum mechanics. His final section is a brief but sensible account of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and its relationship to physics. The problem with this relationship is that it is only possible to determine its nature when the more basic question of how mathematics is embodied in the universe is answered. If mathematical physics is only a description of patterns in the universe, for example, then there is not necessarily any connection. Even if sufficiently complex mathematics is in some way embodied in the universe - you need to have arithmetic with both addition and multiplication - then it is not at all clear what the physical version of a Gödel Undecideable Sentence would be (it would depend on the precise nature of the embodiment, for a start).

Barrow is less polemic than Horgan, more interested in the nature of the various types of scientific impossibility than in ramming home the point that there are limitations to science. Barrow is much more pro-science than Horgan - he is after all a research physicist - which means that his book is less excitingly iconoclastic but perhaps more informative. (The structure of the book also helps here; Horgan's is organised around interviews with prominent scientists which means that his main philosophical points are hidden behind personalities.)

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Readability 4. Rating 4. Subtitled The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits. That about sets the tone. I got off onto the wrong foot with Barrow when he claimed the British started the internet, and never really got back on. I'm still not sure he has the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle right. And his discussion of an inflationary universe that does not inflate at equivalent rates everywhere, and thereby results in pockets of the universe with different values for fundamental properties just wasn't convincing. All in all, it just didn't live up to its potential, and broke no convincing new ground for me.

[Tom Fewings · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was filled with a lot of moments where you have to lift your head from the book and squint off into the near distance before returning your head back into the book. Mind boggling huge and complicated ideas distilled through accessible references.

[Nguyễn · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was quite readable at each part of each chapter. However, it is really hard to follow the tenor. The author gave some different points of view and used them to prove that science has limit. But the bad thing is that, the book is fully speculate and less the scientific evidence.
This book also contains a very terrible error, on page 213:(original writing of the author): "Abel, aided by the work of Galois, finally establish an impossibility theorem". Abel died at 1829, and he did not only know about Galois's interest at that time but also Galois did submitted his work to Académie des sciences in 1831, two year after the death of Abel. So, how can Abel be aided by the work of Galois ?

I really like the aim of this book, but can not rate it more than 2 stars!

[Nick Davies · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was in the main, fascinating. The first half - in which the focus is more on general themes of scientific knowledge and the reasons why there may be limits to what we can ever know - was particularly interesting and in the main engagingly written. The final third was more about cosmology and quantum physics, which lost me a little. However, I understand that this was the author's field and his arguments do rely on the limitations of measurement and knowledge of a universe (or set of universes) the limits of which are impossible for us to understand.

[Divya · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75.

Extensively researched, cross-cutting fields of thought and structures, examples of all kinds to think about impossibilities. Solid read that took me a couple of months on and off (and some library fines :p).

It can feel a tad rambling in parts when you’re deep inside a particular section, but when you zoom out there is a point made. There is a flow to the writing, which can be very hard to achieve in these kinds of books. Each section has so much wisdom and food for thought that one moment you’re reading about one particular way of exploration, and then soon you see how it connects with everything else.

Also, it’s filled with so many incredible quotable quotes! They help break the density of the rest of the text, and they’re just fun :)

“We have to believe in free will. We’ve got no choice.” - Isaac Singer

“No non-poetic account of reality can be complete.” - John Myhill

[Dan Zarfati · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very readable book, well written. The author basically writes several essays on themes connected to the impossibilities in Mathematics and physics, some very interesting ideas are thrown out, they could fill a whole Jorge Luis Borges book. If you are not that familiar with contemporary physics you can still grasp most of it, but if you do it will be even more enjoyable, but it is not the book who will guide you through contemporary physics, rather it is a book with very interesting ideas, that can be fully explored, some of them I agree others seems to be a bit too conservative. Still well worth reading, it is more about philosophy than physics.

[Tymcat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Size matters - if it comes to events in the physical world like star and planet forming or if you can light fire with your hands.
John D. Barrows "science of impossibility" shows us how lucky we are to be smaller than elephants but bigger than insects.
On a scale from atoms to giant stars this is somewhere inbetween, a very particular size - just right to be able to go shopping or to the moon. And size is not all. There are many moments of insight or "have to get up, check something" before reading on.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed dipping my toe back into PHIL 131, which was my philosophy of quantum physics class. The book itself is quite the whirlwind of concepts across subjects. I really liked the analogy of scientific progress to building a temple piece by piece. That and a couple other pages are dog-eared. I'll be excited to flip back over those, but otherwise won't be picking this one up again.

[Gautham · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Impossibility' reminds us how far we are limited in what we have compared to what we aspire to achieve. It exfoliates the idea that science is both the limit and the opportunity that we try to break open within and outside of our understanding.

[Nia · Rating 4 out of 5]

really interesting i liked the inflationary universe part the most

[Crimeny! · Rating 5 out of 5]

after my life shattering acccident, i was struck (ha) with the notion that perhaps my nihilistic philosophy had been slightly skewed. reading this book comforted my morphine addled brain into a sort of peace coma. yes, a peace coma. it is an elegant meshing of science and philosophy. i recommend this to anyone struggling with wrapping their brains around the intangible...or even the tangible boundries of our thoughts and environs.

[Ami Iida · Rating 1 out of 5]

boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,boring, boring,...............trash!
You should not read it absolutely!

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The limits of science--the science of limits" Can we learn everything there is to learn about the world and how it works? If not, why not? Someof the arguments get a bit esoteric, but still interesting to know about.

[Frank Peters · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title of the book is rather deceiving. In reality the book is a summary of what scientism (atheism + science) believes it knows, and what it believes it will eventually know. It was a disappointing read.

[uosɯɐS · Rating 3 out of 5]

2/4/2021

I read this before I started writing reviews. Maybe I should read it again... or did I finally give away my copy?

[C · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Boundaries and limits"

[Scott Kaelen · Rating 5 out of 5]

When it comes to science and its limits it's impossible to beat this book. That last statement is known to be true.

[Vincent Konrad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dragged on a bit but does what it says on the tin.