I recently bought the book "The Big Picture" by physicist Sean Carroll, and have read the first couple chapters thus far. It's a good start so far (nothing really exciting yet), but I really do like the core of Sean's thinking when it comes to the nature of this reality, which is that there are multiple levels of having a discussion about this one reality. This mindset is labeled by Sean as "poetic naturalism".
The way I see it is like this (not necessarily in full harmony with what Sean says as I haven't read the whole book yet):
At one level of discussing this reality, it is appropriate to speak of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. At another level, it is not appropriate, especially if we're discussing how days and nights on Earth occur. At an even deeper level, it's not even appropriate to talk about causes and effects when discussing the fundamental nature of reality, but we can (and should) discuss causality when analyzing reality at levels that are less deep. This is why you may have noticed that biologists, when talking about biological evolution, are describing the world at a higher (less deep) level than physicists talking about the fundamental nature of time (where, at that deep level, biological evolution is not really a thing anymore).
It's sort of like when you're zooming in on something with your mobile phone camera (say, a mountaintop far back in the horizon) and you see such fine details there that you can't see when you zoom back out to the max. It's not the best analogy, but it gives a sort of idea of what reality is possibly like. When zoomed in (in terms of analysis level), we can observe change all around us, but go zoom out "all the way", and you realize change is (or may be) just an illusion.
Fun read thus far. I'll be reading the next couple chapters soon after this post.
Anyone else read/reading this book? And if so, tell me what you think. Feel free to spoil, lol.
The way I see it is like this (not necessarily in full harmony with what Sean says as I haven't read the whole book yet):
At one level of discussing this reality, it is appropriate to speak of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. At another level, it is not appropriate, especially if we're discussing how days and nights on Earth occur. At an even deeper level, it's not even appropriate to talk about causes and effects when discussing the fundamental nature of reality, but we can (and should) discuss causality when analyzing reality at levels that are less deep. This is why you may have noticed that biologists, when talking about biological evolution, are describing the world at a higher (less deep) level than physicists talking about the fundamental nature of time (where, at that deep level, biological evolution is not really a thing anymore).
It's sort of like when you're zooming in on something with your mobile phone camera (say, a mountaintop far back in the horizon) and you see such fine details there that you can't see when you zoom back out to the max. It's not the best analogy, but it gives a sort of idea of what reality is possibly like. When zoomed in (in terms of analysis level), we can observe change all around us, but go zoom out "all the way", and you realize change is (or may be) just an illusion.
Fun read thus far. I'll be reading the next couple chapters soon after this post.
Anyone else read/reading this book? And if so, tell me what you think. Feel free to spoil, lol.
