Skip to main content

The Case Against Reality - Donald Hoffman ***

It's not exactly news that our perception of the world around us can be a misleading confection of the brain, rather than a precise picture of reality - everything from optical illusions to the apparent motion of video confirms this - but professor of cognitive science Donald Hoffman goes far beyond this. He wants us to believe that spacetime and the objects in it are not real: that they only exist when we perceive them. It's not that he believes everything to be totally illusory, but suggests that the whole framework of the physical world is a construction of our minds.

To ease us into this viewpoint, Hoffman gives the example of the Necker cube - the clever two-dimensional drawing apparently of a cube which can be seen in two totally different orientations. Calling these orientations 'Cube A and Cube B' he remarks that our changing perceptions suggest that 'neither Cube A nor Cube B is there when no one looks, and there is no objective cube that exists unobserved, no publicly available cube waiting for all to see.' Yet surely this is disingenuous - there never was any cube, it's a two-dimensional drawing. There is no physical object.

Hoffman provides us with a good and interesting simile in the idea that our perception of the world stands in relation to reality rather in the same way that a graphical user interface does to the underlying bits and bytes in a computer (even if we do then suffer repeated Matrix references, which feel a bit dated these days), and we get plenty of good material on the limitations of the senses - but the extreme conclusions, dragging in evolution and the idea that objects don't exist if we don't observe them feels like an attempt to give a notion a lot more depth than it really has.

It seems pointedly misguided to posit that nothing exists when we don't construct it, then to give examples from 'nature' as if such a thing has an independent existence in this worldview. This contradiction comes through particularly strongly when Hoffman refers to black holes, something we have never directly observed and so, according to his argument, can't exist. Throughout there seems to be a a lack of distinction between models and reality.

From the physics viewpoint, there is a big red flag suggested by having the lead puff on the back of the book written by Deepak Chopra. In fact there is a distinctly Chopra-like attempt to align a theory with quantum physics without any scientific basis: the quantum physics that Hoffman describes seems to assume that quantum particles are constantly in states which are actually fragile and unusual as a result of particles interacting with their environment, causing decoherence. Quantum theory is no help in supporting these ideas of a world created by the observer. Perhaps the clearest example of a lack of understanding of physics is in the statement 'The interface theory predicts that physical causality is a fiction. This is not contradicted by physics.' Unfortunately, it is. Relativity certainly does away with the concept of simultaneity, but this does not mean that causality goes out of the window.

This remains an interesting, if frustrating, book, but it does feel very much like an attempt to construct a castle in the air. The emperor may have some clothes, but they're very skimpy.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg


  1. It is simplistic bullshit.

    I would think the author would be embarrassed to be associated with such "thought" -- but I doubt his self-reflection can compete with his self-importance.

    Consciousness is the biggest mystery we face on a daily basis. Though Dennett explained it years back (LOL), we still have no clue. The Hoffman approach is conceptually flaccid and intellectually uninformed. But, starting with a seriously truncated outline (and understanding) of the target of inquiry, I guess enables a (truncated) version of explanation.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Science of Being Human - Marty Jopson *****

It might seem at first sight that a book titled 'The Science of Being Human' is about biology (or anthropology) - and certainly there's an element of that in Marty Jopson's entertaining collection of pretty-well freestanding articles on human science - but in reality a better clue comes from the subtitle 'why we behave, think and feel the way we do.'

What Jopson does is to pick out different aspects of the human experience - often quite small and very specific things - and take us through the science behind it. I often found that it was something I really wasn't expecting that really caught my fancy. The test with this kind of book is often what inspires the reader to tell someone else about it - the first thing I found myself telling the world was about why old 3D films used to give you a headache, but modern ones tend not to. (It's about the way that in the real world, your eyes swivel towards each other as things get closer to you.)

It's irresisti…

The Crowd and the Cosmos - Chris Lintott ****

We tend to have a very old fashioned idea of what astronomers do - peering through telescopes on dark nights. In reality, not only do many of them not use optical telescopes, but almost all observations are now performed electronically. Chris Lintott does a great job of bringing alive the realities of modern astronomy, and the way that the flood of data that is produced by all these electronic devices is being in part addressed by 'citizen scientists' - volunteer individuals who check image after image for interesting features.

Inevitably, all this cataloguing and categorising brings to mind Ernest Rutherford's infamous quotation along the lines of 'all science is either physics or stamp collecting.' This occurred to me even before Chris Lintott brought it up. Lintott defends the process against the Rutherford attack by pointing out that it can be a useful starting point for real, new research. To be fair to Rutherford, I think this misses the great man's poin…

Artificial Intelligence - Melanie Mitchell *****

As Melanie Mitchell makes plain, humans have limitations in their visual abilities, typified by optical illusions, but artificial intelligence (AI) struggles at a much deeper level with recognising what's going on in images. Similarly in some ways, the visual appearance of this book misleads. It's worryingly fat and bears the ascetic light blue cover of the Pelican series, which since my childhood have been markers of books that were worthy but have rarely been readable. This, however, is an excellent book, giving a clear picture of how many AI systems go about their business and the huge problems designers of such systems face.

Not only does Mitchell explain the main approaches clearly, her account is readable and engaging. I read a lot of popular science books, and it's rare that I keep wanting to go back to one when I'm not scheduled to be reading it - this is one of those rare examples.

We discover how AI researchers have achieved the apparently remarkable abiliti…