Skip to main content

Why? - Philip Goff *****

It might seem a bit odd to review a popular philosophy book here, but Philip Goff's content overlaps sufficiently with cosmology that it's appropriate, and that content is fascinating, even though chances are you won't agree with Goff all the way.

The point of this book is to suggest that there is purpose behind the cosmos. The main evidence for this that Goff uses is the fine tuning of our universe that makes it suitable for life. Most cosmologists agree that this is odd, but many try to explain it using the idea of the multiverse. With some nifty mathematic-less probability (though he does invoke and describe Bayes theorem), Goff demonstrates convincingly that this argument does not hold up. (You can see some detail of how he shows that it's rubbish here.) 

We then take a look at a couple of alternative explanations - a deity, or the universe itself embodying a degree of purpose, which comes under the banner of panpsychism. I didn't honestly find the arguments in either of these sections (for and against) persuasive - but this doesn't stop them from being really interesting. In the God chapter, Goff attempts to logically dismiss the concept, but I found this no more convincing than good old Pascal's wager - people have been attempting to make logical arguments about deities ever since logic existed, and none have succeeded. 

Similarly, I find the argument for panpsychism thin - but it's still interesting to see it explained by one of its major protagonists. Goff also examines other possibilities from a designer that is not all-powerful to the simulation hypothesis. And he takes us into the mind-body problem, presenting three broad options: materialism (the default scientific view of the physical world being fundamental), panpsychism (his preferred option where consciousness is fundamental and the physical world emerges from this), and dualism (the default non-scientific view, where both the physical world and consciousness are fundamental). 

Goff rapidly dismisses dualism making use of Occam's razor, which felt wrong to me. The reality of our understanding of the universe generally requires a lot of 'it's more complicated than we thought' - I don't think Occam's razor is a good enough tool to dispose of an option in such a significant matter as the mind-body problem.

Finally (after a somewhat bizarre plea for the benefits of psychedelics, which I couldn't support), Goff gives us an appendix dealing with the concept that tax is theft. This did slightly emerge from the main text, but is probably best thought of as a separate entity - again, it's a fascinating exercise in thinking about something that brings together moral positions and a field as solid, worldly and sort-of scientific as economics.

It's a slim book and an enjoyable read. Each chapter has an introductory part that takes us into the topic and then a 'digging deeper' part, where Goff takes us through some of the key counter arguments. He suggests you can skip these if you find them too heavy going - but I'd strongly recommend reading them. I've said this book is enjoyable, and it is, but that doesn't mean it's a light read. You do have to think as you go - but the result is well worth the effort.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more