I think I've found one of my new favourite authors.

I first came across Rovelli with HELGOLAND, and his intertwining of science and philosophy really grabbed me.

This one was equally enjoyable, but for different reasons. These short, sharp piece illuminate just how wide-ranging Rovelli's interests are, from Nabokov to the African plains, from the existence of god to the wonder of black holes.

And in each case, his clear, thoughtful prose pulls me right in.

Amazing author, incredible mind. ( )

Far better than his popular science books. There's plenty to enjoy here. ( )

A collection of occasional pieces by Carlo Rovelli is a wonderful opportunity to engage with his piercing intellect and gentle humanism across a wide array of subjects. Essentially journalistic pieces, the focus here is restricted typically to one point per brief article. Gathered from across a publication span of ten years, what remains constant is the presence of Rovelli’s curiosity and compassion. Plus you can’t help but be a bit in awe of his wide erudition not just in science but also in philosophy and literature.

Of the many delightful pieces here, I was struck by the revelation that Einstein was so often wrong. But far from lessening him in our eyes, Rovelli’s reference to these errors actually increase both his and our respect for Einstein’s genius. He is willing to make more mistakes than others and also more willing to correct his own mistakes. Clearly a giant of the 20th century.

Easily recommended. ( )

I'd say we're still only beginning the process of inquiry, with maybe billions of years of thinking and discovery ahead. So, being humble and recognizing our "place in time" like Rovelli does is the correct approach. With 1 cm as 5000 years of thinking "completed", we've kilometres to go. It's also hubris to say we're the first to get this far, so we're just not typical as an intelligent technological species. Babes in the woods. Still, a complex picture has emerged, at least physically (physics), with many facts established that seem to be universal in Nature.

If you’re into Physics, is Rovelli’s more Philosophical approach worthwhile? That depends. When I was in college, I learned that the transistor didn't work because the pn junction stopped all of the electrons from p to n but because it stopped a significantly greater number of them than it did from n to p so in the practical sense, a pn junction could be treated as a one way street for electrons. In many cases, those violators of the one way street were observed in the design of the circuit, but in the general sense, a vacuum tube works because the cathode is heated and the anode is not and the pn junction works because it emulates the vacuum tube diode in that regard. In this sense, Rovelli’s book won’t have much impact on your Physics mindset. But no worries. Good to read a philosophy of science angle on modern science theory. My advice would be to shift the emphasis from theory and the physical world to the concept of human understanding. What does it mean to understand the world around us? If we take the concept of human understanding in physics to mean what it meant for Galileo and Newton, i.e. representation in terms of a mechanical model, then physics parted company with human understanding following Newton's discovery of gravity and the very notion of action at a distance. Newton, according to Hume, showed the "imperfections of the mechanical philosophy and thereby restored Nature's secrets to that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." Quite a statement from a philosopher of outstanding genius and one which, I think, should be taken very seriously. Some of the greatest physicists have since echoed this insight in one way or another expressing their dissatisfaction with the nature of modern physics theories both at the micro level of QM and at the macro level of cosmology. For example, Dirac pointed out that leading physicists themselves understand that modern science no longer even tries to present models or pictures of how the world works. What they give us instead, according to Dirac, are ways of looking at the fundamental laws which make their self-consistency obvious. Dirac was no fool either. Rovelli is also no fool either.

Much food for thought though for philosophers of science and for the general readers of this interesting book.

Scientifically-inclined people who think philosophy is all waffle need to read more Bertrand Russell perhaps. They will then quickly realise that it's only *mostly* waffle. ( )