The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself

The Big Picture by Sean Carroll is an excellent book for anyone who wants a concise, understandable, and we'll written overview of modern science, with an emphasis on quantum mechanics and the philosophy of Poetic Naturalism. In this review I will focus on the philosophical side of his work and particularly his treatment of issues related to consciousness. As Carroll puts it, "Naturalism” claims that there is just one world, the natural world... (while) “Poetic” reminds us that there is more than one way of talking about the world . He describes these different ways of talking about the world as an "interconnected series of models appropriate at different levels". From this perspective, physics, chemistry, biology, and even psychology and sociology are simply different but useful ways of talking about the same world. From a scientific perspective, the most fundamental way of talking about the world is quantum field theory and, more specifically, the Core Theory, a term coined by Nobel Laueate Frank Wilczek. The Core Theory may be viewed as quantum field theory within a "domain of applicability" that includes most of the universe in which we live but excludes certain phenomena (e.g. dark matter, the big bang and black holes). Though the Core Theory is not the elusive Theory of Everything, it has been validated by so much data from so many experiments that it may be as close as we ever get to scientific certainty. As Carroll puts it, "We can be confident that the Core Theory, accounting for the substances and processes we experience in our everyday life, is correct. A thousand years from now we will have learned a lot more about the fundamental nature of physics, but we will still use the Core Theory to talk about this particular layer of reality". That is an audacious claim, but Carroll supports that claim with rigorous scientific reasoning. Carroll views higher level or "coarse grained theories" such as chemistry and biology as "emergent" and describes them as "... speaking different languages, but offering compatible descriptions of the same underlying phenomena in their respective domains of applicability". For example, chemistry and biology are emergent models of the universe, compatible with each other and the Core Theory, but with unique utilities in their particular domain of applicability. He briefly mentions supervenience, the view that emergent theories exist in an ontological hierarchy where higher level theories rest on more fundamental theories. For example, there could be no change at the level of biology without there being a change in the underlying chemistry. Similarly, there could be no change at the level of chemistry absent a change in the more fundamental physics. All of the models are interconnected and interdependent. Though each model has its own unique utility and coherence, that utility and coherence ultimately rests on a consistency with other more fundamental models. Unfortunately, Carroll's treatment of how different emergent models relate to each other alternates between autonomous or semiautonomous utility on the one hand and consistency with more fundamental models on the other. Though he warns readers not to begin a sentence in one model and end it in another, by moving between these two criteria for the validity of those models, he committs a very similar error. He frequently refers to consistency or compatibility among different models as essential, but also writes, "Within their respective domains of applicability, each theory is autonomous—complete and self-contained, neither relying on the other". This is just one example of where he suggests that the soundness of a model can be evaluated by its utility and internal coherence, and without reference to consistency with more fundamental models. In my opinion, when this level of credence is given to utility, one has entered a slippery slope that can lead to invalid ontological conclusions. Now, the criteria of utility does have its own domain of applicability, namely when the theory does not make ontological claims. For example, there are languages or ways of talking about everything from hair styling to stamp collecting that do not make claims about fundamental reality. Even Newtonian physics has its utility within its particular domain of applicability. In these areas, utility is a perfectly reasonable criteria. But when it comes to any model that claims to reflect, at some level, an underlying reality, utility by itself is an inadequate criteria. Another example is theism, a world view that Carroll does an excellent job demonstrating why it is not only unnecessary but a way of looking at the world but one that is ultimately inconsistent with the Core Theory. But if one evaluates the validity of theism, and particularly the theism embodied in major world religions such as Jewdaism, Christianity, and Islam, from the perspective of their utility, one is headed for an ontological train wreck. Who can deny the comfort (i.e. utility) that faith in a loving god and a blissful after life has given millions if not billions of people? But does that mean that such a world view is real in the same sense that the Core Theory is real? Of course not. The same logic applies to the role of consciousness in human behavior. Though there may be personal or social utility in the belief that conscious intent is responsible for human behavior, such a position is inconsistent with everything we know from cognitive science and everything we know about how the world works according to the Core Theory. Behavior emerges from complex brain activity, not inner experiences. The fact that our brain is responsible for both behavior and consciousness, at approximately the same time, gives rise to the illusion that conscious intent causes behavior. It is no more reasonable to claim that consciousness is responsible for behavior than to claim that a god is responsible for behavior or that a roosters crowing causes the sun to rise. Carroll tries to get around this by claiming that consciousness is just another way of talking about brain activity and the deeper layers of chemistry and physics. Unfortunately, reducing consciousness to a way of talking about experience fails to solve the Hard Problem. Consciousness is more than just a way of talking about brain states. It is dependent for its existence and form on those states, but is not identical to them. I do not claim to know what consciousness is, but whatever it is, it is more than words. Thus, poetic naturalism fails as a satisfactory philosophy of mind on two counts. First, it fails to give an adequate understanding of inner experience and secondly, it provides credence to the idea that consciousness is responsible for behavior. The first failure is understandable; the Hard Problem is hard for a reason and no one has yet come up with a satisfactory solution to it. As David Chalmers has said, that may take a hundred years. But Carroll should have seen the second failure coming. By allowing for the claim that consciousness can be responsible for behavior, he is opening the door for a new element in the Core Theory, an element he has argued persuasively does not exist. If it existed, this new element or property, somehow related to connsciousness, would make David Chalmers a very happy camper, but for the Sean Carroll who describes the Core Theory with such reverence, not so much. In conclusion, The Big Picture is an excellent book on the current status of science and his portrait of Poetic Natualism as a unifying philosophy. For those reasons, I highly recommend it to interested lay readers. However, I also urge those readers to be very careful in analyzing his treatment of consciousness. I believe he made a significant error in that analysis, though the error could very easily be my own.

This is an enormously ambitious book, infused with an admirable passion and a formidable intellect. Professor Carroll, who is a Cal Tech physicist by trade and one heck of a philosopher by inclination, attempts to reconcile the scientific truth that we are “mere matter in motion” (p. 14) with our psychological need to believe we are something grander. Some observations: “Why are we here?” is not a question for a physicist. Nor is it a question for a philosopher. It’s a question for a poet. The belief that such a “why” question can be answered presupposes some belief in purpose. In no equation, in no observation, in no result of an experiment will you find purpose except as put there by humans. Purpose is an anthropological notion. And so, it is as the poet said, “We are here as on a darkling plain where ignorant armies clash by night.” (Matthew Arnold) Or Life “is a tale. Told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” (Shakespeare) So, it is not by happenstance that Professor Carroll calls his philosophy “poetic naturalism.” He knows better than I do that science does not answer “why” questions. What he is saying with this idea--for example in the case of free will and in the conflict between a scientific viewpoint and our social and even practical need to believe in free will--is that both viewpoints can be said to be legitimate depending on the frame of reference in which they are expressed. If we’re in a courtroom free will is a legal fact of life; but if we are neurologists perhaps free will is an oxymoron. Whether a homicidal maniac has free will or not and is responsible for his actions or not is beside the point: he has to be stopped. Whether he should be punished or whether heroes should be rewarded has nothing to do with whether we have free will or not. The homicidal maniac should be punished so as to deter others from behaving in a similar manner; heroes should be rewarded in order to encourage others to heroic action. But wait! If we don’t have free will how can others act in accordance with doing the good and avoiding the bad? The answer is, with or without free will they will be influenced to do what is right and avoid what is wrong by societal forces acting both from within and from without. While poetic naturalism may be a felicitous way of talking it doesn’t change the fact that in a scientific sense free will is an absurdity. What Carroll is doing is glossing over the truth for social and perhaps political lubrication. If we adopt his position (and I think we should) we don’t have to be concerned with some awkward truths. Some more observations: Carroll writes: “The Big Bang itself, as predicted by general relativity, is a moment in time, not a location in space.” (p. 51) I realize that physicists use the term “time” as a way of talking. Einstein himself did even though he made it clear that time does not by itself exist. Better here I think would be “…is an undefined event, not a location in space.” He says as much in the next paragraph when he notes that the Big Bang is “most likely, not real…” but “is a prediction of general relativity.” In the same paragraph beginning with “The Big Bang itself” Carroll writes the Big Bang “would be the moment prior to which there were no moments: no space, no time.” I think he means “subsequent” not “prior.” Carroll asks (p.90) “How do you know you’re not a brain in a vat, or a character in some more advanced being’s video game?” He answers, “You don’t. You can’t.” Two pages later Carroll brings up philosopher Nick Bostrom’s contention that “it’s more likely we are living in a simulation than directly in the ‘real world.’” Carroll explains, “The idea is essentially that it’s easy for a technologically advanced civilization to run powerful computer simulations, including simulated people, so most ‘people’ in the universe are most likely part of such simulations.” How to fight against cognitive biases? Ask yourself “Do you want something to be true? That should count against it in your assignment of credences, not for it. Does new, credible evidence seem incompatible with your worldview? We should give it extra consideration, not toss it aside.” (p. 121) In talking about an “antirealist” approach to quantum mechanics, Carroll contends that Niels Bohr believed that “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” (p. 167) This is similar to one of my favorite ideas, namely that humans can never find ultimate truth but, as in an ever-widening sphere, gain more and more knowledge and understanding. On page 219 Carroll makes the point that life is “a process rather than a substance.” (Also see page 2.) He adds, “Life is a way of talking about a particular sequence of events taking place among atoms and molecules arranged in the right way.” Incidentally “a way of talking” is an expression and idea central to this book. Some things in our experience and understanding are for all we can prove just “a way of talking.” Carroll’s point is that a way of talking can be very important. A sly joke: “Mars is the only known planet to be inhabited solely by robots.” (p. 238) When Carroll writes about consciousness (I’m thinking of the “neuristor” thought experiment on page 342) he fails to define consciousness. He writes on the next page that “We should judge a conception of what consciousness really is on the basis of whether is provides a useful way of talking about the world…” In my book “The World Is Not as We Think It Is” I give a three-part definition of consciousness that allows us to “talk” more effectively about consciousness. At least I hope so. Understanding consciousness is another matter. It may be that it is so difficult that we could compare it to the difficulty a two-dimensional creature would have in understanding or appreciating the three-dimensional world. As noted above Carroll’s stance on free will is a bit slippery. On page 393 he avers that “We aren’t slaves to our desires; we have the capacity to reflect on them and strive to change them.” I would say, “Yes, IF that is our desire.” On page 411 Carroll seems to agree—again it’s a bit slippery. He quotes David Hume: “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” (Read “desires are.”) Carroll goes on to say that we “…are the raw materials from which morals are constructed. Judging what is good and what is not is a quintessentially human act., and we need to face up to that reality.” In other words, our morality comes from our desires or passions. He notes that “other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do.” --Dennis Littrell, author of “Hard Science and the Unknowable”

The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself by Sean M. Carroll “The Big Picture” presents the fascinating scientific story of our universe (the big picture) and why we think it’s true and philosophically why despite being part of a universe that runs according to impersonal underlying laws, we matter. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll provides readers with an ambitious yet accessible view of topics pertaining to the big picture. This interesting 475-page book includes fifty chapters broken out into the following six parts: 1. Cosmos, 2. Understanding, 3. Essence, 4. Complexity, 5. Thinking, and 6. Caring. Positives: 1. Professionally written, accessible and well-researched book. 2. The fascinating topic on the origins of life and its meaning. 3. Sean M. Carroll does a wonderful job of turning complex and interesting topics accessible to the layperson. He does this by making effective use of diagrams and concise descriptions and keeping mathematical equations to a minimum. 4. Describes how the purpose of life came to be. “Purpose and meaning in life arise through fundamentally human acts of creation, rather than being derived from anything outside ourselves. Naturalism is a philosophy of unity and patterns, describing all of reality as a seamless web.” 5. Describes effectively terms. “This principle goes by a simple, if potentially misleading, name: conservation of information. Just as conservation of momentum implies that the universe can just keep on moving, without any unmoved mover behind the scenes, conservation of information implies that each moment contains precisely the right amount of information to determine every other moment.” 6. The Big Bang described. “The Big Bang itself, as predicted by general relativity, is a moment in time, not a location in space. It would not be an explosion of matter into an empty, preexisting void; it would be the beginning of the entire universe, with matter smoothly distributed all throughout space, all at once. It would be the moment prior to which there were no moments: no space, no time.” 7. How we learn about the world. “Bayes’s Theorem can be thought of as a quantitative version of the method of inference we previously called “abduction.” (Abduction places emphasis on finding the “best explanation,” rather than just fitting the data, but methodologically the ideas are quite similar.) It’s the basis of all science and other forms of empirical reasoning.” 8. Describes reality. “Together they have dramatically increased our credence in naturalism: there is only one world, the natural world, operating according to the laws of physics.” 9. The strength of science examined. “The nice thing about theories in physics is that they are very clear about what information is needed to predict the behavior of an object, and also clear about what the predicted behavior actually is.” “Science is all about discovering the actual world in which we live.” 10. Some statements resonate loudly. “I would rather live in a universe where I am responsible for creating my own values and living up to them the best I can, than in a universe in which God hands them down, and does so in an infuriatingly vague way.” 11. A look at consciousness and its implications. “Consciousness emerges from the collective behavior of particles and forces, rather than being an intrinsic feature of the world. And there is no immaterial soul that could possibly survive the body. When we die, that’s the end of us.” 12. The world of quantum mechanics. “Quantum mechanics is a profound change from classical mechanics, whereby the outcomes of experiments are not perfectly predictable, even if we know the state exactly. Quantum mechanics tells us the probability that, upon observing a quantum system with a specified wave function, we will see any particular outcome.” 13. Interesting conclusions. “The progress of modern physics and cosmology has sent a fairly unequivocal message: there’s nothing wrong with the universe existing without any external help.” 14. The implications for the immaterial soul. “If the particles and forces of the Core Theory are what constitute each living being, without any immaterial soul, then the information that makes up “you” is contained in the arrangement of atoms that makes up your body, including your brain. There is no place for that information to go, or any way for it to be preserved, outside your body. There are no particles or fields that could store it and take it away.” 15. The second law of thermodynamics explained. “The second law says that the entropy of an isolated system will increase until the system reaches maximum entropy, after which it will sit there in equilibrium. In an isolated system, the total amount of energy remains fixed, but the form that energy takes goes from being low-entropy to being higher-entropy.” 16. The power of science. “How do species evolve from earlier species? How do organic molecules become synthesized? How do cellular membranes assemble themselves? How can complex reaction networks overcome free-energy barriers? How can RNA molecules develop the ability to act as catalysts for biochemical reactions? These are questions we have answered.” 17. Evolution. “The octopus eye is a better design, with the retina in front and nerves in back, so that octopuses don’t have a blind spot like humans do. Our anatomy reflects the accidents of our evolutionary history.” 18. Describes what makes consciousness special. “Consciousness is not a single brain organ or even a single activity; it’s a complex interplay of many processes acting on multiple levels. It involves wakefulness, receiving and responding to sensory inputs, imagination, inner experience, and volition.” 19. Debunks free will. “There is no room for human choice, so there is no such thing as free will. We are just material objects who obey the laws of nature.” 20. Death. “There are few issues of greater importance than the question of whether our existence continues on after we die. I believe in naturalism, not because I would prefer it to be true, but because I think it provides the best account of the world we see.” 21. Ethics. “Our ethical systems are things that are constructed by us human beings, not discovered out there in the world, and should be evaluated accordingly.” “The rules of basketball aren’t objectively defined, waiting out there in the universe to be discovered; but they aren’t arbitrary either. Morality is like that: we invent the rules, but we invent them for sensible purposes.” 22. Appendix and references provided. Negatives: 1. My biggest complaint has to do with how extremely careful to a fault Carroll was about not offending atheists and theists. In fact, very rarely uses the term atheism preferring to use naturalism. 2. The book lacked a little panache. Fascinating yet not necessarily what I would consider fun to read. 3. In general Carroll does a good job of describing complex topics but I have found some other authors like Cox, Greene, and deGrasse Tyson more effective. 4. Some topics even at the most accessible levels are complex and will go over the layperson. 5. The term poetic naturalism seems a bit contrived. In summary, I’ve had this book in my queue to read for several years and finally came around to it and I’m glad I did. Carroll masterfully interweaves multiple scientific disciplines in short chapters to draw a picture of the universe and why we matter. This is an ambitious book that covers a lot of territory via many scientific disciplines and for the most part Carroll succeeds in explaining complex topics where I feel he fails is when he gets too cute with some of the terms. As an example, poetic naturalism, where Carroll wants to have his cake and eat it too. That said, the book is overall very good and I recommend it. Further recommendations: “From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time” by the same author, “Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution” by Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Until the End of Time” by Brian Greene, “To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science” by Steven Weinberg, “Why Does E=mc2?” and “Wonders of the Universe” by Brian Cox, “Longitude” by Dava Sobel, “Cosmos” by Carl Sagan, “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking, and “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.

Sean Carrol's book is a shrewd amalgamation of physics, philosophy, and metaphysics. With glamorous precision, Dr. Carroll elucidates the "the big picture" - that is, almost every important and far-reaching issue in the metaphysical domain - in a way that is articulate, dexterous, and pungent. Dr. Carroll seems to have a penchant for pedagogy, or at least I assume; he's so good at teaching. Some of the reviews seem to be misguided and some I would presume to be biased based on the fact that the author is an outspoken proponent of atheism. Because theism is dismissed (I presume too quickly for some), many readers probably consider the author to be a staunch demagogue of atheism, but the book doesn't seem to have such an objective. Rather the author puts forth sufficient reasons why we shouldn't, in Laplace's words, need that hypothesis. He comprises of a framework called "poetic naturalism" which incorporates the naturalist's stance of "there is only one world which is the natural world that we live in" with the poetic part: "there are many ways of describing the naturalistic view of life". Following this framework, for example, the author would say that it is alright to describe something like a chair in relatively macroscopic terms then by the atoms it's composed of. Anyways, on the other-hand, a reviewer claimed that the author tried to hard to walk on a "tightrope", i.e., appease both sides when he should have rather taken a stand. If in one's mind he is really doing that, then it sure doesn't seem to me that he's doing it badly. The author may not be as fervent as other nonbelievers might (or should) be on such subjects, but he definitely does not try to reconcile faith and science. There is no compromise to his scientific inquiries. At the very least, he tries to understand from the believers perspective (even if weak - which was another [plausible] retort by the reviewer), but I think this helps the reader gain a little bit of perspective. Structurally, the book is divided into 6 parts, each with an essential "theme" if that's what you want to call it but incorporate many chapters that are tangentially related. In in the first part called Cosmos, we are introduced to "poetic naturalism" and we review the philosophical bend of many great thinkers that have laid the foundations before us. There were many good and interesting history lessons that were relevant to the overall discussion of the book. On the next part, “Understanding”, the author examines our knowledge about what we know, what we’ve known, our belief credence’s and the Bayesian way of thinking. It’s a lot to write here, but the discussions are forceful and there are many good concepts on how to go about thinking about certain things and what to invest your belief in. A strong point of the book: the schematic illustrations were on point, well done. These parts prepare us for the next part, “Essence”, which covers much of cosmology and examines the material world from the universe to the particle. In this chapter - quite possibly the best in the book – there are notably brilliant discussions about quantum mechanics and the particles and their interactions, or Core Theory. The chapter on Core Theory, with the eponymous name, is worth a second read. It’s hard to believe that anybody have explicated these concepts better. In the next part called “Complexity” the author discusses evolution and as done with every other part he puts it under the scrutiny of poetic naturalism. By this I mean he examines things like meaning and purpose, cause and effect. I’ve read many evolution books and yet these chapters’ hail as some of the best I’ve read. They are explanatorily clear and conceptually engaging. In "Thinking" he explores the major topic of consciousness. It was good to see that the other did his research and invoked great minds in the field like Daniel Dennett. Some "intuition pumps" - in dedication to Dennett - should be familiar to those who have looked into consciousness such as Mary the scientist, The Chinese Room Experiment, and free will. And the final part called "Caring" explores how we can live a meaningful life despite being a subscriber to naturalism. Despite the impregnability of the major topics discussed in this book (e.g. the origins of the universe, consciousness, limitations of modern day physics, etc), the author goes in full circle and insists that we can understand and create meaning for life in the lens of poetic naturalism. Different philosophical ideas such as [broadly speaking] "goodness" and "evil" are explored through Hume, Kant, etc. The book was outstanding from beginning to end, and even the appendix which sets out to briefly explain Core Theory was gold. 4.8/5

As someone who is well into their senior years but who has been a curious and voracious reader for more than 7 decades, some of my passions include views of consciousness, the mind, and the meaning of the universe. This is why while browsing on Amazon when I saw this 485-page soft cover book (The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself by Sean Carroll) I decided to purchase it. This excellent book explores from both the scientific and philosophical point of view various aspects of the many mysteries of the universe. First off, this is a serious academic study that explores many aspects of the sciences and numerous philosophical aspects of the meaning of life and the universe. This book is organized into 50 detailed chapters in six parts covering “the cosmos, understanding, essence, complexity, thinking, and caring” I enjoyed reading this thought-provoking book and if you are interested in the many fascinating aspects of life and the universe this is a book you may want to check out. Rating: 5 Stars. Joseph J. Truncale (Author: Tactical principles of the most effective combative systems).

Just finished reading "The Big Picture: on the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself" by Sean Carroll. A good read, although some sections could have been tightened up a bit. I like his use of Bayesian probability to make various arguments although in some cases almost any assumptions could be plugged in. His treatment of entropy was different and I am not sure completely correct with a model of cream mixing into coffee his interpretation was like taking a JPEG at various times and the degree of compression possible was directly related to complexity and therefore entropy. He made no attempt to put this into Shannon information theory and he seemed to suggest entropy will increase according to the second law at first but then decrease? His approach to the origin of life was heavy on the importance of ATP and the use of the proton/electron gradient and the RNA world putting down metabolism first approach. He seems to think fatty acids and nucleotides will just be there in the environment. All this works up to discussions of "consciousness", intelligence and free will that seems very similar to Dennett and Dawkins. From there he proceeds to "the meaning of it all" which I liked at first since he also clearly does not believe that science is ever going to help with ethics, morality or meaning. Surprisingly, he appears to have missed Dworkin's work although he does go through the typical Hume and Kant discussion. Finally he ends with his own ten commandments or principles to live life by without any real justification. Overall, I would recommend this but I am not sure I came out with any tremendous revelations or insights.

This is a magnificent book written by an erudite physicist, an astute observer and a humane and thoughtful human being. Professor Carroll beautifully summarizes the current state of thinking in physics and cosmology; referencing major philosophical strands, and covering epistemology, ontology, Entropy, evolution, complexity, origin of life, Consciousness, Reason, Morality and ethics. There are six parts to this 460 page book: Cosmos, Understanding, Essence, Complexity, Thinking and Caring. The author is an atheist, though raised a Christian and he has coined a phrase for his way of thinking: Poetic Naturalism. Prof. Carroll maintains a steadfast commitment to naturalism which he defines as follows: "There is only one world, the natural world, exhibiting patterns we call the 'laws of nature,' and which is discoverable by the methods of science and empirical investigation. There is no separate realm of the supernatural, spiritual, or divine; nor is there any cosmic teleology or transcendent purpose inherent in the nature of the universe or in human life." He tackles the difficult problems of origins, consciousness, body & soul and morality head on; and to his great credit discusses all sides fairly. Maintaining his presuppositional naturalistic commitments, he continues with this summary "'Life' and 'consciousness' do not denote essences distinct from matter; they are ways of talking about phenomena that emerge from the interplay of extraordinarily complex systems. Purpose and meaning in life arise through fundamentally human acts of creation, rather than being derived from anything outside ourselves. Naturalism is a philosophy of unity and patterns describing all of reality as a seamless web." The author carefully and comprehensively defines the "core theory"; the model of the particles, forces and fields that constitutes the entire universe. He also discusses the "past hypothesis" with a low entropy beginning that allows for everything else. Much of the origins question revolve around that low entropy beginning and the arrow of time. For me, the low entropy beginning without a divine originator, doesn't make much sense. His grappling of the bigger and messier problems of thinking, consciousness, soul, human identity and morality are admirable and enlightening. His deep humanity shines through in these discussions; and though he steadfastly retains a naturalistic commitment, he is always fair. Again, for me, his attempts at describing the origin of consciousness, thinking, and especially morality fall short of being convincing. I have a Christian worldview so I think the best answer is God as transcendent creator, and man in his image. I deeply admire Prof. Carroll in his triumphant and illuminating summary of the big picture from a poetic naturalistic viewpoint. It is well worth the read for anyone from any side!

Sean Carroll is a successful theoretical physicist, skilled ponderer of philosophical questions and gifted communicator of science. He brings all these qualities to bear in his big-hearted, ambitious latest book “The Big Picture.” The book is part sweeping survey of some of the most thought-provoking ideas in modern science, part sweeping rumination on two of the most fundamental questions that we can ask: How do we gain knowledge of the world? And how do we distill meaning from an impersonal, purely physical universe? The book can roughly be divided into two parts. The first part can be titled “How do we know” and the second can be titled “What do we know”. The siren song weaving its way through Carroll’s narrative is called poetic naturalism. Poetic naturalism simply means that there are many ways to talk about reality, and all of them are valid as long as they are rooted in naturalism and consistent with one another. This is the central message of the book: we make up explanations about the world and we call these explanations “stories” or “models” or “ideas”, and all of them are valid in their own ways. The first part of the book explores some of the central concepts in the philosophy of science that make up poetic naturalism. Carroll starts from Aristotle and the ancient Greeks and progresses through the Arabs. He explores the investigations of Galileo in the seventeenth century. It was Galileo and his intellectual successor Isaac Newton who showed that the world operates according to self-sufficient physical laws that don’t necessarily require external causes. One of the most important concepts explored in the book is Bayesian thinking, in which one assigns probabilities to phenomena based on one’s previous understanding of the world and then updates this understanding (or “priors”) according to new evidence. Bayesian thinking is a powerful tool for distinguishing valid science from invalid science, and for distinguishing science from nonsense: one could in fact argue that all human belief systems operate (or should operate) according to Bayesian criteria. Bayesianism does introduce an element of subjectivity in the scientific process, but as Carroll demonstrates, this supposed bias has not harmed our investigations of natural phenomena and has allowed us to come up with accurate explanations. Another thread weaving its way through the book is that of emergence and domains of applicability. Emergence means the existence of properties that are not strictly reducible to their constituent parts. Although Carroll is a physicist and holds fundamental physics in high regard, he appreciates that chemistry has its own language and neuroscience has its own language, and these languages are as fundamental to their disciplines as photons and electrons are to physics. No field of inquiry is thus truly fundamental in an all-encompassing sense, since there are always emergent phenomena that offer stories and explanations in their own right. Emergence also manifests itself in the form of what are called effective theories in physics; these are theories in which the macroscopic behavior of a system does not depend in a unique way on a detailed microscopic description: for instance a container of air can be perfectly described by properties like its average temperature and pressure without resorting to descriptions of quarks and Higgs bosons. As long as the two domains are consistent with each other (what Carroll calls “planets of belief”) we are on firm ground. These ideas lay the foundation for the second half of the book which takes us on a sweeping sojourn through many of the key ideas of modern science. Carroll says that the most important description of the world comes from what’s called the ‘Core Theory’. This theory ties together the fundamental forces of nature and particles like the Higgs boson; it is grounded in general relativity and quantum mechanics. It can explain the entire physical universe, from atoms to the Big Bang, certainly in principle but often in practice. If there's any one hard scientific lesson to take away from the book, it's that the universe is made up of quantum fields. Later chapters deal with topics like evolution in real time, photosynthesis and metabolism, leading theories for the origins of life, thermodynamics and networks in the brain. When Carroll talks about entropy, complexity and the arrow of time he’s in his element; one important aspect of complexity which I had not quite appreciated is that complexity can actually result from an increase, not decrease, of entropy and disorder if guided the right way. The book also dwells in detail upon Rene Descartes since his ideas of dualism and pure thought seem to pose challenge to poetic naturalism, but as Carroll demonstrates, these challenges are illusory since both the mind and the body can be shown to operate based on well known physical principles. These ideas keep appearing in the later parts of the book in which Carroll deals with many thought experiments in philosophy and neuroscience that purport to ask questions about reality and consciousness. Some experiments involve zombies, others involve aliens simulating us; all are entertaining. A big question is subjective experience (or “qualia”) which is sometimes regarded as some kind of impenetrable domain that’s divorced from objective laws of nature. For the most part Carroll convincingly shows us that the same laws of nature that give rise to the motion of the planets also give rise to one’s perception of the color red, for instance. This section of the book involving famous conundrums like John Searle’s Chinese Room and ‘Mary the Color Scientist’ is fascinating and highly thought-provoking, and while the thought experiments have no clear resolution, Carroll’s point is that none of them violate the basic naturalistic structure of the universe and demand mysterious explanations. His discussion of consciousness is also very stimulating; he thinks that consciousness is not really a thing per se but an emergent property of organized matter. More succinctly, it’s a useful invention, a description of a particular way in which matter behaves rather than something that is beyond our current understanding of natural law; it is what we say rather than what is. Much of Carroll’s discussion here reminds me, as cheesy as it sounds, of a line from ‘The Matrix’: words like love, care and purpose are mere descriptions borne of language - what matters are the connections they imply. The book ends by taking us on a tour of some of the most important philosophical questions that human beings have asked themselves; questions of meaning, purpose, emotion and free will. Personally I found this section a bit rambling but I cannot really blame Carroll for this: none of these questions have a definitive answer and all are subject to speculation. On the other hand, this little tour provides non-specialists with an introduction to well-known philosophers and philosophies, including constructivism, deontology and utilitarianism. The big question here is how meaning can arise from the impersonal natural laws that have been described so far. Neither Carroll nor anyone else knows the answer, and the book simply makes the case that all these qualities are emergent properties that are all consistent with poetic naturalism. You may or may not be satisfied by this answer, but it certainly provides food for thought. In a book as ambitious as this one there’s bound to be some disagreement, and that’s a good thing. Here are some questions I had: Generally speaking Carroll is on more firm ground when talking about science rather than philosophy. Quite oddly at one point, he uses poetic naturalism to argue against opposition to gay marriage and LGBT rights. While his support for these issues is one I heartily share, I am not sure poetic naturalism is the best or the most persuasive reason to uphold these causes: we should support them not because of but in spite of naturalistic reasons. Also, Carroll who is a self-professed naturalist spends several paragraphs describing how all of the arguments for a supernatural God violate naturalism. However I think religion has a purpose beyond describing the real world, and ironically this purpose lends itself to the same analysis that Carroll does of human qualities like care and love. I would think that based on much of the book’s narrative, religion would be described as an emergent phenomenon that provides people with a set of stories and descriptions; these stories provide succor and and a sense of community. Are these stories real? They may not be, and they are certainly not grounded in natural law, but Carroll himself says at one point that models of the world should be used because they are useful, not because they claim to be real. Shouldn’t one say the same thing about the positive and personal aspects of religion? However, none of these concerns should detract from the sweeping scientific and philosophical journey the book takes us on. Carroll is an engaging, sympathetic and pleasant guide to the big picture, irrespective of whether you agree with him completely or not. Ranging over some of the most pressing questions that humanity has unearthed and continues to unearth, the one clear message in the book is an unambiguous one: we will always keep on searching, and this search will continue to propel humanity past unexpected and exciting horizons. More than anything else the discussion drives home the grandeur of the universe and the human mind, and this is grandeur we should all revel in. Perhaps this bit of wisdom from Carroll’s chapter on entropy where he is describing complexity in a cup of coffee sums it up best: “Those swirls in the cream mixing in the coffee? That’s us. Ephemeral patterns of complexity, riding a wave of increasing entropy from simple beginnings to a simple end. We should enjoy the ride.”

Beautiful Book ruined by Poor Condition *angry sad emoji* really need try to take care of books during storage, retrieval, and delivery

とても意義深い内容です。

EXCELENTE LIBRO Y PRESENTACION Y MUY BUENA CCALDIAD EN SU HECHURA

This is a book that is written by a theoretical physicist who is, of course, an atheist. But, it's different than the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. What Sean Carroll proposes is what he calls poetic naturalism as a philosophy of life. In short, he argues that naturalism fully explains the universe and our place in it, while poetic naturalism lets us hold onto meaning, morality, and purpose as emergent human creations. And, he does it very convincingly. Great read.

Highly recommended.