What do you think?
Rate this book
A Beginner's Guide to Reality: Exploring Our Everyday Adventures in Wonderland
Have you ever wondered if the world is really there when you're not looking? We tend to take the reality of our world very much for granted. This book will lead you down the rabbit hole in search of something we can point to, hang our hats on and say this is real . On the way, Jim Baggott examines some of the things that have been said about reality by a few of the world's greatest thinkers-from the philosophers of ancient Greece to modern scientists and social theorists. Jim Baggott is the author of The Meaning of Quantum Physics and Beyond Modern Physics, Philosophy, and Quantum Theory , both published by Oxford University Press. He lives in England.
256 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2005
28 people are currently reading
271 people want to read
About the author
Jim Baggott
27books143followersJim Baggott completed his doctorate in physical chemistry at the University of Oxford and his postgraduate research at Stanford University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
June 3, 2015
18 year old me would've thought this was the best book ever, but having been removed from constant challenging philosophical thought for so long I think I've lost the thrill it used to give me. Don't get me wrong, I still love philosophy but questioning the truth of every aspect of reality doesn't really seem productive to me anymore. This book is broken up into 3 parts and the first 2 are excellent. I love the ideas that were explored mainly the ones questioning why and how we perceive things. I enjoyed the realization that the information we receive using our senses is in a way false, but by the end of the book it feels like Baggott is just trying to stump the reader for the sake of... stumping the reader.
Baggott's writing style is witty and interesting and he's obviously incredibly well read and informed, however, the third chunk of his guide to reality fails to provoke a logical line of thinking that I really care to follow. Good read and I'd definitely recommend to philosophy buffs, but I got bored towards the conclusion.
Baggott's writing style is witty and interesting and he's obviously incredibly well read and informed, however, the third chunk of his guide to reality fails to provoke a logical line of thinking that I really care to follow. Good read and I'd definitely recommend to philosophy buffs, but I got bored towards the conclusion.
May 28, 2010
Does colour exist in the dark?
A couple of weeks ago I started discussion with Greg about our perception of reality. At the end of the discussion I had the distinct impression that I wasn't putting my point across effectively due to, I don't know, let's say pure ignorance on the subject, whereas Greg effectively used a number of arguments to show that my view of the intrinsic nature of colour is problematic.
Hmmm, after reading this book I still disagree. Below I have made up a jumbled up summary of why:
'There is simply nothing we can point to, hang our hats on and say this is real. '
In the Republic, what Plato is saying is that we can never hope to truly understand the nature of reality, because we are locked in the prison of our mortal senses. We are prisoners in the cave.
Without your mind, or conciousness what do you have? Photons of different energies and wavelengths, chemicals containing distinctive groups of atoms, physical objects with certain surface properties and compressions and rarefactions in the air. In none of this physics and chemistry can we find colour, taste, scent, softness or melody. They are all qualities produced in our minds all producing different patterns of electrical stimulation in the brain.
This does not mean that our perception is the only form of representations of reality. We have to accept that other realities exist which are as legetimate as our perception of the representation of reality.
What becomes obvious is that our entire world is based on perception. It is our perceptions that is the reality. It is impossible for us to ever have knowledge of a reality that we can't perceive and so it is therefore seems meaningless to speculate about the existence of such an independent reality.
If we were to believe in a reality independent of perception then We can only hold on to the idea of an independently existing primary material substance, but at the cost of having to accept that we can ascribe no independently real properties to it, and can never hope to explain how this substance might give rise to the perceptions we have of it.
The argument that Berkeley makes is that the primary qualities of a material object cannot exist without it's secondary qualities of shape/colour etc. We cannot conceive of objects possessing shape but not colour, for example. 'Perception is reality'.
So, we can have no knowledge of what objects are 'really like', NEITHER can we have knowledge of the connections between them - cause and effect exists only in our mind, and so does time for that matter. - Kant's view.
Now, that sums up where philosophers stand at the moment from Plato to Aristotle to Descartes to Berkerly to Kant to Hume and on and on...
Is there a defense against Descartes' demon or Kant's intuition?
What do the Physicists think, surely they will give some credence to the reality which they deal with everyday in measurements and calculations. Just a few questions should clear this up, we don't need the answer to 'life the universe and everything', Just what is matter?
Copenhagen Interpretation categorically denies that there is anything to be gained from thinking that we can ever discover the true nature of physical objects 'as they really are'.
It insists that properties of fundemental objects like photons or electrons do not exist until they are exposed to something with which they can interact, such as a measuring device.
The first area of conflict is quickly summarized. If. quantum states are not determined until the quantum objects have undergone some kind of interaction, such as a measurement, then how is the quantum state of the universe determined? Quantum theory demands something 'outside' with which it can interact, but if everything there is is in the universe then there is nothing outside the universe with which it can interact. There is nothing outside the universe to collapse the wave function. Unless we want to get theological, there is no 'observer' outside the universe to make it real. Is there?
Fuck fuck fuck fuck...
Blindsight-
"You're blind," he said without turning. "Did you know that?"
"I didn't."
"You. Me. Everyone." He interlocked his fingers and clenched as if in prayer, hard enough to whiten the knuckles. Only then did I notice: no cigarette.
"Vision's mostly a lie anyway," he continued. "We don't really see anything except a few hi-res degrees where the eye focuses. Everything else is just peripheral blur, just� light and motion. Motion draws the focus. And your eyes jiggle all the time, did you know that, Keeton? Saccades, they're called. Blurs the image, the movement's way too fast for the brain to integrate so your eye just—shuts down between pauses. It only grabs these isolated freeze-frames, but your brain edits out the blanks and stitches an � an illusion of continuity into your head."
He turned to face me. "And you know what's really amazing? If something only moves during the gaps, your brain just—ignores it. It's invisible."
Brains are survival engines, not truth detectors. If self-deception promotes fitness, the brain lies. Stops noticing� irrelevant things. Truth never matters. Only fitness. By now you don't experience the world as it exists at all. You experience a simulation built from assumptions. Shortcuts. Lies. Whole species is agnosiac by default
Perhaps we are really living in Descartes' dream world.
A couple of weeks ago I started discussion with Greg about our perception of reality. At the end of the discussion I had the distinct impression that I wasn't putting my point across effectively due to, I don't know, let's say pure ignorance on the subject, whereas Greg effectively used a number of arguments to show that my view of the intrinsic nature of colour is problematic.
Hmmm, after reading this book I still disagree. Below I have made up a jumbled up summary of why:
'There is simply nothing we can point to, hang our hats on and say this is real. '
In the Republic, what Plato is saying is that we can never hope to truly understand the nature of reality, because we are locked in the prison of our mortal senses. We are prisoners in the cave.
Without your mind, or conciousness what do you have? Photons of different energies and wavelengths, chemicals containing distinctive groups of atoms, physical objects with certain surface properties and compressions and rarefactions in the air. In none of this physics and chemistry can we find colour, taste, scent, softness or melody. They are all qualities produced in our minds all producing different patterns of electrical stimulation in the brain.
This does not mean that our perception is the only form of representations of reality. We have to accept that other realities exist which are as legetimate as our perception of the representation of reality.
What becomes obvious is that our entire world is based on perception. It is our perceptions that is the reality. It is impossible for us to ever have knowledge of a reality that we can't perceive and so it is therefore seems meaningless to speculate about the existence of such an independent reality.
If we were to believe in a reality independent of perception then We can only hold on to the idea of an independently existing primary material substance, but at the cost of having to accept that we can ascribe no independently real properties to it, and can never hope to explain how this substance might give rise to the perceptions we have of it.
The argument that Berkeley makes is that the primary qualities of a material object cannot exist without it's secondary qualities of shape/colour etc. We cannot conceive of objects possessing shape but not colour, for example. 'Perception is reality'.
So, we can have no knowledge of what objects are 'really like', NEITHER can we have knowledge of the connections between them - cause and effect exists only in our mind, and so does time for that matter. - Kant's view.
Now, that sums up where philosophers stand at the moment from Plato to Aristotle to Descartes to Berkerly to Kant to Hume and on and on...
Is there a defense against Descartes' demon or Kant's intuition?
What do the Physicists think, surely they will give some credence to the reality which they deal with everyday in measurements and calculations. Just a few questions should clear this up, we don't need the answer to 'life the universe and everything', Just what is matter?
Copenhagen Interpretation categorically denies that there is anything to be gained from thinking that we can ever discover the true nature of physical objects 'as they really are'.
It insists that properties of fundemental objects like photons or electrons do not exist until they are exposed to something with which they can interact, such as a measuring device.
The first area of conflict is quickly summarized. If. quantum states are not determined until the quantum objects have undergone some kind of interaction, such as a measurement, then how is the quantum state of the universe determined? Quantum theory demands something 'outside' with which it can interact, but if everything there is is in the universe then there is nothing outside the universe with which it can interact. There is nothing outside the universe to collapse the wave function. Unless we want to get theological, there is no 'observer' outside the universe to make it real. Is there?
Fuck fuck fuck fuck...
Blindsight-
"You're blind," he said without turning. "Did you know that?"
"I didn't."
"You. Me. Everyone." He interlocked his fingers and clenched as if in prayer, hard enough to whiten the knuckles. Only then did I notice: no cigarette.
"Vision's mostly a lie anyway," he continued. "We don't really see anything except a few hi-res degrees where the eye focuses. Everything else is just peripheral blur, just� light and motion. Motion draws the focus. And your eyes jiggle all the time, did you know that, Keeton? Saccades, they're called. Blurs the image, the movement's way too fast for the brain to integrate so your eye just—shuts down between pauses. It only grabs these isolated freeze-frames, but your brain edits out the blanks and stitches an � an illusion of continuity into your head."
He turned to face me. "And you know what's really amazing? If something only moves during the gaps, your brain just—ignores it. It's invisible."
Brains are survival engines, not truth detectors. If self-deception promotes fitness, the brain lies. Stops noticing� irrelevant things. Truth never matters. Only fitness. By now you don't experience the world as it exists at all. You experience a simulation built from assumptions. Shortcuts. Lies. Whole species is agnosiac by default
Perhaps we are really living in Descartes' dream world.
September 9, 2019
loved all 3 parts about society, philosophy and especially quantum. but conclusion seemed a bit weak. anyway good starting book. gave me lots of references to continue exploring all the different fields.
September 19, 2014
რა არის რეალობ�? არის კი ყველაფერ� რეალურ� რასა� ვხედავ� ვეხები� და ვგრძნობთ? ეს წიგნ�, საგნებ� თქვენს ირგვლი�, მთებ�, მდელოები, მდინარეები? რა არის საერთო� რეალობ�? ასეთ ფუნდამენტუ� თემა� ეხებ� წიგნ�. შეიძლება ერთი შეხედვით ეს ყველაფერ� ნათელი�, "რეალურია!" - იტყვით, მაგრამ სანა� ერთმნიშვნელოვა� დასკვნას გამოიტან� ჯე� ეს წიგნ� წაიკითხე�. პირველ� ნაწილი ეხებ� სოციალურ რეალობას რომელი� მხოლოდ ჩვენ� გონებაში შეიძლება არსებობდეს, (სხვა ადგილი მისთვი� არ არსებობს) მეორ� ნაწილშ� ვმოგზაურობ� ფილოსოფიურ ლაბირინთებში, პლატონიდან მოყოლებული ფილოსოფი� ცდილობდა გაეგ� რა არის რეალობ�, არსებობს კი ის ჩვენგა� დამოუკიდებლა� თუ ჩვენივ� გონები� ნაყოფი�? არის მკვეთრ� ზღვარი გონებასა და გარე სამყაროს შორი�? განყენებულ� რეალობის სასარგებლო� ფილოსოფიაშ� არ� თუ ის� სახარბიელო დასკვნებ� წავაწყდები�. მესამე ნაწილს ავტორი მეცნიერება� და კვანტუ� მექანიკა� უძღვნი�. სადა� განხილულია მატერიის ფუნდამენტი, რა არის რეალობ� კვანტუ� დონეზე? რა� გვეუბნებ� კვანტური განუსაზღვრელობის პრინციპი და კვანტური თეორიი� კოპენაგენური ინტერპრეტაცი�? განყენებულოი რეალობის კონცეფცი� კვლა� ბუნდოვანია.
საერთო ჯამშ� წიგნ� ძალიან საინტერესო და სასარგებლო ინფორმაციითა� გაჟღენთილი,თუმც� მაქვ� პატარა შენიშვნები, მაგალითა� მეორ� ნაწილშ� აღწერილი ფილოსოფიურ� არგუმენტების (გონებისა და გარე სამყაროს გაყოფი� თაობაზ�) გაბათილება საკმაო� სუსტია. ამისთვის ავტორს მოყავს მხოლოდ ერთი მაგალითი. რო� გონება გრძნობით� სენსორების გარეშე სათანადო� ვე� ფუნქციონირებ�. ჩემი აზრი� საჭირო� ამ მაგალითი� განზოგადებ� და ხაზგასმა როგორც "მეცნიერული მეთოდი" რომელი� ანახებ� სამყაროს მუშაობის და ამოხსნის რეგულარუ�, ემპირუ�, მათემატიკუ� ხასიათ�. საინტერესო� მეცნიერული რეალიზმი� და ფილოსოფიურ� პოზიციების შეჯახება და გადაკვეთ�. (ამის განხილვა და ჩემი აზრი� დაფიქსირებ� ძალიან შორს წაგვიყვანს)
ამ წიგნის შემდეგ შეიძლება ცოტა თავი აგტკივდე�, მაგრამ არაუშავს, ხანდახან საჭირო�, საჭირო� იმის გაცნობიერება რო� სინამდვილეში არ ვიცი� რა არის რეალობ�. შეიძლება მართლა� პლატონის გამოქვაბულში ვსხედვარ� და ვუყურებთ რეალურ� საგნების ჩრდილებს, შესაძლოა არ�. ვი� იცის?
საერთო ჯამშ� წიგნ� ძალიან საინტერესო და სასარგებლო ინფორმაციითა� გაჟღენთილი,თუმც� მაქვ� პატარა შენიშვნები, მაგალითა� მეორ� ნაწილშ� აღწერილი ფილოსოფიურ� არგუმენტების (გონებისა და გარე სამყაროს გაყოფი� თაობაზ�) გაბათილება საკმაო� სუსტია. ამისთვის ავტორს მოყავს მხოლოდ ერთი მაგალითი. რო� გონება გრძნობით� სენსორების გარეშე სათანადო� ვე� ფუნქციონირებ�. ჩემი აზრი� საჭირო� ამ მაგალითი� განზოგადებ� და ხაზგასმა როგორც "მეცნიერული მეთოდი" რომელი� ანახებ� სამყაროს მუშაობის და ამოხსნის რეგულარუ�, ემპირუ�, მათემატიკუ� ხასიათ�. საინტერესო� მეცნიერული რეალიზმი� და ფილოსოფიურ� პოზიციების შეჯახება და გადაკვეთ�. (ამის განხილვა და ჩემი აზრი� დაფიქსირებ� ძალიან შორს წაგვიყვანს)
ამ წიგნის შემდეგ შეიძლება ცოტა თავი აგტკივდე�, მაგრამ არაუშავს, ხანდახან საჭირო�, საჭირო� იმის გაცნობიერება რო� სინამდვილეში არ ვიცი� რა არის რეალობ�. შეიძლება მართლა� პლატონის გამოქვაბულში ვსხედვარ� და ვუყურებთ რეალურ� საგნების ჩრდილებს, შესაძლოა არ�. ვი� იცის?
February 2, 2015
Brilliant intro to what "reality" actually means.
The book is split into three main chapters discussing Money (social reality and the societal systems we have built for ourselves), Colours (reality as we perceive it via our senses) and Light (what is actually there in a particle physics sense regardless of what we can perceive).
It is all written simply enough for anyone to understand, but not condescendingly. I still have trouble with the physics part - I have never been a physics buff - and find myself reading without paying attention and then two pages in I realise I don't know what I'm reading any more. It's a difficult chapter for me personally and I'm rereading it (constantly) to try to get it and make it stick. I honestly believe he explains things well and I'm just not plugged in for that last chapter, but I love this book. It is also a great starting point for lots of different topics which is exactly what it's meant to be: an introduction, "A Beginner's Guide".
The book is split into three main chapters discussing Money (social reality and the societal systems we have built for ourselves), Colours (reality as we perceive it via our senses) and Light (what is actually there in a particle physics sense regardless of what we can perceive).
It is all written simply enough for anyone to understand, but not condescendingly. I still have trouble with the physics part - I have never been a physics buff - and find myself reading without paying attention and then two pages in I realise I don't know what I'm reading any more. It's a difficult chapter for me personally and I'm rereading it (constantly) to try to get it and make it stick. I honestly believe he explains things well and I'm just not plugged in for that last chapter, but I love this book. It is also a great starting point for lots of different topics which is exactly what it's meant to be: an introduction, "A Beginner's Guide".
December 11, 2012
An accessible summary of the history of thought on just what the nature of reality might be. It uses every day examples of money & marriage to explain socially constructed consensus reality. It talks of Plato's cave of shadow perception rather than direct sight as still being relevant today. The author uses films such as "The Matrix" and "Terminator" and Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide..." to entertaining effect. It's only in the penultimate 2 chapters that it gets a bit science heavy as it moved through quantum theory, to string and M theory. The writer is a physicist and it's these chapters where that shows and a couple of statistical tables always signals my eyes getting heavy. But that aside, this is a passable introduction, that is, it does what it says in the title. I didn't have my eyes opened to any new illuminations, but I did have the whole subject wrangled into one enclosure for my brain in a very acceptable way.
July 19, 2010
Somewhat charming, if smugly so, and trite overview of the philosophical history of the concept of reality. Baggot relies on too many references to The Matrix and pop-culture, while never really establishing his own stance. It didn't quite do it for me.
July 13, 2011
What started out as an extremely interesting philosophical read with a pop culture twist devolved into a highly repetitive lesson straight out of a textbook. Probably should have given it 2 stars, but I did really appreciate the initial approached
June 18, 2018
Liked the first two sections a lot, but couldn't finish it because the third part about quantum physics was too confusing
November 11, 2020
Although the author is one of my all-time favorites, this book was a great surprise to me. I'm used to reading Baggott's physics books, so it was a new experience to see him delve into philosophy. Yet, he managed to excel at explaining everything down to a level of simplicity accessible to any kind of reader. Given all that, the only vice in this book is the imbalanced treatment of the topic. More emphasis is placed on the philosophical than scientific view of reality. Still, I can see that this came out of the fact that reality's nature is a traditionally philosophical topic in its very nature. All in all, I really liked this book and would recommend it to any popular science reader.
December 8, 2022
This book explores reality through philosophy and physics with several movie references thrown in. It was definitely very interesting. However, I would be lying if I said I understood all of it or didn't have trouble following it at times. The book is well-organized but doesn't give enough concrete real life examples. There are some good examples that really help (with Bob and Alice), but then he dives back into the exploration and forgets to resurface for awhile. I found I mostly understood it once I reread sentences and paragraphs a couple times. Maybe this is one to reread in another stage of my life to see if I understand and appreciate it more.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 6, 2021
As a beginner reader, i love the first two chapters. He made me watch the whole Matrix series again, but the last chapter is too confusing it left me hanging and ended up not finishing the book.
November 3, 2023
Started as an out-of-the-box thinker, but ended up like everyone else in mainstream physics at the moment. Some nice writing along the way though.
June 20, 2015
I made a mistake with this one and listened to the audio book. There was just way too much information to take in while attempting to commute to and from work. Read the book.
The book is basically an attempt to take a look at what we perceive our reality to be. The Matrix is actually referenced quite a bit. The first section, Money, really focuses on the reality that society has set up and the reality that everyone buys in to. That rectangle with Andrew Jackson on it that you exchange for goods? That only means $20 because society has deemed it as such, ergo that is our reality. This was an interesting section mainly because we really do take a lot for granted because we just accept that this reality and the social norms are what we must accept.
Colours is the next section and it's about what we perceive with our senses (Does color exist in the dark?). The we get into Light and some physics that I will admit lost me for a while. Here is where an actual book would have made a lot of difference.
While Baggott does reference the Matrix, this book uses the movie as a jumping off point. The philosophy and physics discussed could lead to some very interesting thoughts and conversations. Again, the audio book was well narrated but not how I should have read this book.
The book is basically an attempt to take a look at what we perceive our reality to be. The Matrix is actually referenced quite a bit. The first section, Money, really focuses on the reality that society has set up and the reality that everyone buys in to. That rectangle with Andrew Jackson on it that you exchange for goods? That only means $20 because society has deemed it as such, ergo that is our reality. This was an interesting section mainly because we really do take a lot for granted because we just accept that this reality and the social norms are what we must accept.
Colours is the next section and it's about what we perceive with our senses (Does color exist in the dark?). The we get into Light and some physics that I will admit lost me for a while. Here is where an actual book would have made a lot of difference.
While Baggott does reference the Matrix, this book uses the movie as a jumping off point. The philosophy and physics discussed could lead to some very interesting thoughts and conversations. Again, the audio book was well narrated but not how I should have read this book.
August 2, 2011
Since my local Borders store is having a going out of business sale, I decided to see if I could get any good deals on books. I browsed the under stocked philosophy section, and I found Jim Baggott's book titled A Beginner's Guide to Reality. I read the first chapter in the store; it seemed to be a very promising read. The first eight chapters of the book are interesting, and it really demonstrates a lot about our perception of reality. Starting with chapter 9 until the end of the book is like reading a totally different book compared with the first eight chapters. The last four chapters of this book deal mostly with explanations about physics and quantum mechanics. The author very vaguely ties these concepts into the theme of his book (reality), but does so on very rare and poor occasions. Baggott has written about quantum physics before, and his writing shows that this is his area of expertise. His effort to tie physics into a philosophical understanding fails on every level. I could only give this book two starts because even though the first eight chapters are fairly good, the resulting four chapters utterly ruin this book.
July 30, 2014
In last five or so years that I have been listening to audio books, I have chosen to listen to several nonfiction books on philosopy and even more on science, learning from all and enjoying most. Today I finished A Beginner's Guide to Reality by Jim Baggott and have decided that it is the best of those listens in which the author tried to reconcile science and philosophy as methods of determing what is real and what is not. Baggott develops his discussion chronologically by beginning with Sccrates, Plato, and Aristotle's explanations of reality. He furthers follows the philosophical discussions of this topic through the recent contributors. He makes these discussions interesting by illustrating using pop icons like the movie, "The Matrix." As building a continuum between philosophy and science, he discusses scientists earliest efforts to define what is reaal and follows their changing positions on the subject through the most recent arguments for modified string theory and that elusive "Theory of Everything." I highly recommend this listen to anyone for whom reality is still a mystery worth solving.
May 22, 2014
A very good overview. I wish he had spent more time examining social reality rather than physical though. While the "rabbit hole" of physical reality is of great interest to academics and science geeks, it is the social reality that has the greatest effect on our daily, lived experiences, and it is the social reality that is ultimately what humanity is actually capable of changing. He did manage to point out a number of myths and fallacies about our perceived social reality but it felt like the end of that section was wrapped up in a rhetorical flourish of "Ah, well, whaddaya gonna do? Moving on...". The last section dealing with specifics of quantum theory got a little bit convoluted for me. I didn't care for his examples using ordinal directions to explain quantum entanglement as I felt they actually added a layer of confusion. I do plan to read some of his other books that are more focused on that topic though.
May 30, 2013
What a great book, combining philosophy and science to explore the reality of "reality". Baggott ranges from Plato's caves, to Descartes and Kant, to Schrodinger's Cat. He discusses reality from 3 perspectives: socially constructed reality (so you thought money was real?), physical reality (all this time I thought my "red" was the same as yours), and finally how science deals with, or fails to deal with reality (to think that the universe may only be a collapsed wave function in a conscious mind). This book is written in a lighthearted manner making it enjoyable reading. Baggott draws heavily on movies, especially Matrix, and "far-out" literature such as the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, to help us understand the complex concepts presented.
March 2, 2016
When I was almost leaving Lisbon, my advisor gave me a big list of further readings I was supposed to finish along my career as a researcher. Like most of the books he tols me to read, this one questions the idea of absolute and independent reality and which scientific theories are out there to help us - or to confuse us. Baggott, we must say, does a brilliant history of man and world relationship, but his flaw is to forget about the power and importance of myths and legends. He dedicates about two lines on this matter and we can't deny its importance. However, in the epilogue he kind of highlights all the possibilities to deal with reality and emphasizes (a little) the role of philosophy in science (Heisenberg also has done that too).
June 8, 2017
Since a kid I've always wondered what is reality, how do we perceive it and what does science tells us about universe we are a part of.
This is a great trip down the rabbit hole on the different schools of thought, which I found utterly fascinating.
At the end of the day, we couldn't put our finger on school of thought and say this is real and I don't think that we will know for sure in my life time, but I find it very interesting to think about.
I think the book is well laid out and a must read for those with curious minds.
This is a great trip down the rabbit hole on the different schools of thought, which I found utterly fascinating.
At the end of the day, we couldn't put our finger on school of thought and say this is real and I don't think that we will know for sure in my life time, but I find it very interesting to think about.
I think the book is well laid out and a must read for those with curious minds.
July 28, 2010
i really enjoyed reading this book. its a great metaphysical book for beginners and makes you question what reality really is. for the most part, the author goes about this using reason, but in the last part he goes a bit into quantam physics, not to put you off it of course!!! its a great read, even if your not a philosophy major, it written in a very readable way. i would strongly recommend this!!
April 19, 2015
The only thing that elevates the contents of this book above the level of someone's rambling blog about The Matrix is that it goes on a lot longer and is less focused. There's definitely an idea or two worth thinking about here, but the back cover has those covered. That the author decided they were worth around 200 more pages is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. I'd go as far as to say that the only redeeming quality of this book is its faintly interesting title.
April 2, 2007
So I loved this book, well all of it until the bits that I didn’t understand, I got a bit confused with the quantum particles. I was going so well up until then...
Otherwise it’s written really clearly, all the philosophy sections were really easy to follow, and Baggott has a great sense of humour.
But will definitely read it again, when I’m feeling slightly more intellectual.
Otherwise it’s written really clearly, all the philosophy sections were really easy to follow, and Baggott has a great sense of humour.
But will definitely read it again, when I’m feeling slightly more intellectual.
October 4, 2010
"Baggot guides the reader on an interesting journey trying to discover reality, from ancient philosophy up through quantum physics. Although, he does a really good job of describing the issues in laymen terms, the nature of the topics can be a bit hard to follow. It might be a bit of a stretch to claim this as a ""Beginner's Guide."""
August 25, 2011
This book was divided into three parts. The first two were entertaining on the reality of money and social conventions like marriage and countries. The biggest kicker was the Ancestor Simulation thoery. But it bogged down for me on the Quantum Physics and became more of a chore than an entertaining or thought provoking read. So thumbs up for the lighter half and thumbs down to quantum thoeries.
August 7, 2011
A fascinating book that overviews 3 styles of philosophy. The author is careful to not let his own views taint his presentation of the methods, until he reveals his own feelings towards the end of the book. While it's not exactly 'light' reading, it's not too complex or hard to get though, and the author has an approachable style of writing with good humor injected into it. A fine book, indeed!
July 26, 2011
well written, interesting and makes you think.
March 25, 2013
I rarely leave a book unfinished but wasn't able to finish it. If you're a total science geek then maybe you'll enjoy it :)
February 11, 2013
Extremely boring and repetitive. Dude makes the same points over and over.
July 14, 2013
A well readable and comprehensive introduction into some of the most important topics of philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.