Slashdot Mirror
God's Debris
I like reading books that make me think, but not in the same way that I think when I'm at work or doing homework. When reading for pleasure, I want something that at first glance is so strange it's absurd, but at closer examination makes a tremendous amount of sense. That depth is the essence of Scott Adams' God's Debris, A Thought Experiment.
Adams is not known for writing super-intelligent commentaries on life, at least ones without a punchline or visual gag. Creator of Dilbert, his writing to this point has focused upon the world of cubicles and shifting organizational charts where engineers and management ('induhviduals' as he often calls them) square off in battles where the engineers are right and management is wrong. Very straightforward, enjoyable reading, but nothing compared to his latest work.
God's Debris was first published in May of 1999 as an e-book. It is sold by Digital Owl and can be purchased as bits for $4.95 or in hardcover wherever books are sold. The story focuses on both the physical laws of nature (relativity, gravity, the origin of the universe) and the psychology behind religion. The story is told by a fairly educated narrator talking to an unseen second character who seems to hold a deep understanding of the universe. As I read more, I found my own questions being raised by the narrator, and addressed by the other character. This arrangement makes for a very strange read, but the unusual format enhances the overall reading experience.
This book second guesses everything one learns in school, and comes close to succeeding. I cannot think of a single statement in the book that can be proven incorrect. To a college-educated reader like me, some of the assertions may seem totally ridiculous -- the problem is that they make just as much sense as Einstein's relativistic physics. In the introduction to the book, Adams observes the fact that ' ... the simplest explanation usually sounds right and is far more convincing than any complicated explanation could hope to be.'
The protagonist makes some very peculiar assertions throughout; My favorite is a statement he makes about the true nature of gravity, specifically that it is fueled by probability. The idea his advances is that all matter is constantly switching in and out of existence, and that is how objects move. The reason that matter appears to be attracted to other matter is that, according to the rules of probability, each piece of matter will inherently appear closer to massive objects the next time it comes back into existence. If you didn't understand that, and you'd like to, then you should read the book.
If you are a religious person, I can assure that this book will be disturbing. Although not told from an atheist point of view, the protagonist rejects the traditional view of religion. There are references to religious beliefs as 'delusions' only intended to allow the less-enlightened to live in relative peace in a world which has little. Taken as a whole, the views expressed can best be summarized ala Jesse Ventura, that 'organized religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.'
I'm purposely avoiding going into detail about the contents of the book. This is not only because a small piece doesn't make sense by itself, but also because most of the fun is in the discovery. Reading this book, you feel as if you are the first and only person to truly understand the world. I wouldn't want to spoil that for you. It's only 132 pages, broken up into very short chapters, and it can be read on your lunch break. I highly recommend it.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain. Do you want to see your book review on Slashdot? Please take a look at the book review guidelines first.
Jesse Ventura rephrased that from Karl Marx, who said that "religion is the opiate of the people".
Grab.
I haven't read The Dilbert Future, so I can't comment on it, but I did read God's Debris and did not find it overly smug or anything. Adams actually prefaces the book with some comments saying that he in no way claims that the views expressed in the book are the truth or even necessarily what he believes; his primary intent in the book is just to get your mind moving...I think he even refers to the book as a thought experiment. And he does a very good job accomplishing that. Do his arguments hold up to strong discussion? Not really, but at least they provoke the discussion.
-Mike Wolf
I don't have an account, so I'll just go on as anonymous coward.. hahaha
but anywayz, if that didn't blow your mind (not that i've read this book), take a read at 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene. Its about superstring theory and multidimensional space-fabric.
If you can comprehend the possiblity of 10 space and 1 time dimension as a start... then this is your book!
and no, i have no financial gain by endorsing this book, its just the greatest thing since 'A brief history of time' by Stephen Hawking
It's bad, but bad enough to be funny, I guess. Or maybe not.
The other thing is that several of the individuals you listed are either deists (essentially agnostics; believing in a deity, but not necessarily the christian one), or atheists. Here's a few quotes for you:
Thomas Jefferson:
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Plato used the format of a somewhat-enlightened person vs. very enlightened person conversation in The Republic, which formed at least part of the basis of the Heglian dialect (thesis-antithesis-synthesis).
Scott's doing nothing new format-wise, but I'd be interested in what he has to say. Much of it sounds like the stuff he wrote towards the end of The Dilbert Principle
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
> No true scientist would say he has a theorem (A->B) that is absolutely true. He can say its true based on the observance of the 5 senses and is currently repeatable.
A theorem is ALWAYS ABSOLUTELY TRUE coz it's nothing more than a chain of logical deductions establishing the truth value of a statement (i'm meaning the logical truth not the "philosophical" one.. ) in regards to a given set of "basical" (primitive) statements (the hypothesis), whose truth value is considered unambiguous for the scope of this reasoning.
Maybe you'r confusing THEOREM whith THEORY. The main difference between them is that the THEORY tries to explain some thing happening into the real word (and therefore the set of initial conditions can not be controlled/known @ 100% and the observability is limited by our "5 senses" as you could say) whereas the THEOREM is an abstract reasoning where one can control/set ALL the parameters.
The main consequence is that a theory HAS to be refutable in order to be considered a scientific theory..