Read proof of the pudding reviews, rating & opinions:Check all proof of the pudding reviews below or publish your opinion.
100 Reviews Found
That is the best word to describe this album. Apart from their Live album, I think this one is the best. The album has amazing songs, perfect writing, and the most necessary is the notice it delivers. These 4 guys have an perfect chemistry that shines through on this album. Singing acapella is a difficult thing and these guys have it down pat. I think my favorite song is Take Me Away. When you buy this CD, be sure to take a moment and listen to the very latest song. Allow it run for a min or so, there is a suprise at the end of Alleluia (my 2 year olds favorite song).
Go Fish's second album is again the best ever! The purity of their acappella combined with their desire to share the love of Jesus and have fun doing it makes this CD one you've got to listen to. From their hilarious "Big Poor Billy" to the ever-touching "Cry In The Rain", Go Fish's unmistakable sincerity and talent shine. "Will You Dance" may seem confusing the first time around, but listen to it again and you'll understand just how the guys feel about what they do. The simplicity and beauty of "Alleluia" grasps the listener. And, for all of you who hold advising to " Allow it run for a min or so" after the latest song, yes, every single one of Go Fish's albums has a hidden track. "Part of the Proof"'s first hidden track is a remake of their one on "Out of Breath". But wait? What's that? It's another hidden track! You'd better allow your player play itself out. There are always more surprises with a Go Fish CD. And as the gofishguys themselves say... "You've heard us sing, now the record's at its end, so what ya gonna do? Listen to it again!"
If you count the four track album simply titled "Go Fish Acappella", then this album is their third release and definitely a new work that fits together very well. If there was one thing that I noticed when I was listening to the songs this time around, it's that even when the notice became a serious one-on-one with God approach, each song had an underlying theme of hope (except for the sixth track - I am uncertain of what to create of it currently). Examples contain "Cry in the Rain" (fourth track) which sincerely speaks to all people in the pattern of its predecessor "You're My Small Girl" (from "Out of Breath" and "Acappella"), yet it takes it one step further. Not only is it a reminder that God is show when life is delivering lemons and limes, but He is also show to faithfully bring us through and then also show to rejoice by making Sprite (okay, poor ogy with lemon-lime, but you obtain the idea). All throughout this CD, you can sense how things have begun to build for this very talented group through the production, and if you have the original "New Heart (without percussion)" and "Will You Dance" from "Acappella," you'll recognize that they reworked just a small bit of the background help without messing with the dynamics that created the songs the unbelievable pieces that they are.
An OK read, I did mange to [email protected]#$%!. too much of the author in the book - where he is at, who he is taking to, how he got drunk as a skunk with mates to try hang-over cures. Not a whole lot of science, and it's watered down. I read a lot of non-fiction, I just don't like the chatty items in this book - lots of it is just page filler, chewing gum for the eyes. A much better book on 'booze' is "Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol" by Iain Gately.
The Science of Booze is a very interesting book on alcoholic fermentation, whisky fabrication and the effects of ethanol Rogers exposes a meritorious and extensive investigation he created in Canada, USA and Scotland, that deserves a slow and careful reading by those people interested in knowing what they are getting when drinking alcoholic e huge bibliography shown at the end, provides profuse info for the prospective investigators on the booze e notes extend the scope of the book and the index, which is an orderly list of concepts, is very helpful to find info along nce the book is written in colloquial language, it has somehow difficult passages to be quickly understood by nonnative English language readers.
Good, interesting read. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys alcohol of any type. Obviously - this will tend to appeal more to the nerds mostly. However, it has its appeal for others as well.Ultimately, Adam Rogers won't be shocking you with insight, but I'd say he distils (pun unintended) the science into something that is palatable and entertaining - kinda like your favourite domestic brew.I can admit that my curiousity was certainly stirred by the book, but I can't say I was shaken!
I suspect this book is of more interest to me, as a whiskey collector, than to most, but it is actually great. It deals with everything alcohol, from its history, to its put in society (throghout history), and largely the science behind it, usually at the chemical and physical levels. What's nice is the author makes a lot of the science comprehensible and even when you may not know specifically what is event at the organic chemistry level (I almost never did), you still understand what it means. And he also throws in enough casual accounts and humor to hold you going if/when the book starts to feel a small dense
Proof provides a beautiful amazing overview of the scientific globe of booze, albeit with a serious western angle. The chapters read well, and the latest word on Hangovers is a joy to read for those of us all too familiar with the subject. I learnt quite a lot from the book, and it introduces some cool people and locations too. It would be amazing to have an updated ver that addresses Baiju as a category as the dry fermentation and the highly efficient if somewhat unorthodox distilling process (for those of used used to western distillation) are poorly understood and deserve more together a very enjoyable read, and recommended for drink fans looking for a considered glance at the state of the industry today.
While this is touted as a scientific text, it really is far more of a disjointed history of the science of booze. I was totally amused at the end when the writer talks about his editor not wanting a history book, but that he couldn't write what he wanted without historical context. This is an enjoyable romp through alcohol from begin to finish, covering a lot of subjects - often well intertwined topics. It's organization is sparse, jumping back and forth between topics sometimes seemingly at random, and it is filled with technical buzzwords. Often the author will have a whole paragraph of synonymous terms for something - not really important for a lay text, and while it sounds very CSI sciency, it really doesn't enhance the delivery or info ere is a lot of solid research and interesting material in here. Making it more condensed would have conveyed that info much more clearly, but would probably have upset the people who wish page count. There are a lot of anecdotes from private interviews, some relevant, some not. The author's need to go into descriptions about the interviewee's dog or related nonsense is sometimes distracting, but sometimes does support to add flavor to the tail. A lot of work went into the glossary and index.Overall, it's a fun book. It's not a science book. You'll obtain fun facts for use at your next trivia party, but not really much science out of this.I'm really glad I got the low cost Kindle edition. It was well worth $3, but would have been very disappointing at hardcover prices.
Meandering, but not quite drunkenly, this book follows somewhat disconnected interviews and reflections within an otherwise fairly well-organized framework. It reads more like an informal -- but informative -- private journal... rather than hard science writing. But that gives it a certain charisma. My only nag... Not every point it pursues reaches closure. Sometimes the author introduces an interesting question or science plot point, as if to make suspense, but that suspense is never resolved. The book just coasts blithely to the next segment. (Many tv doentaries do this as well. It's a strategy to hold you engaged.) Anyway. Despite this, I wasn't unhappy with it. A amazing read. Cheers.
Interested in Alcohol's History, Chemistry, and Drink Fermentation Processes? Then this book will quickly become a go-to for tail information, making you a drinking [email protected]#$%! conversationalist! It includes the history of drinking, brewing, types of yeasts, types of fermentation processes and much more in a very simple to read the book.I bought it as a bonus to a fellow who happened to see it at another friend's home and was totally intrigued by it, so I got it for him. I used to distill alcohol and understand what the process entails and I found this book totally well written and worth the time to read (or have it ready for a long plane trip). Please buy this and become an alcohol expert!
I’ve never appreciated alcohol. I’m an early 90’s child and I can count the ‘adult’ beverages I’ve had on one hand. Only a few weeks ago I learned about ‘shotgunning’ beer. Yeah, I’m that person.Oddly, Proof was just my kind of book. This was a heavy info drop on a topic that I have never truly appreciated, and didn’t know much about. Rogers writes in journalistic style with enough wit and humor that created it both edgy and entertaining. The book created me thirsty, and as I drank, I began to appreciate alcohol. In the beginning of the book, terminology such as ‘amino acids’, ‘ATP, and ‘alleles’ were popping up. I began having flashbacks to my one, pathetic semester of human biology. My interest in organic and biochemistry was sparked. Rogers took me into biology labs, distilleries, and fermentation process labs where the I experienced the process of booze-making for the first time, the basics of ethanol, the role of ‘congeners’ (molecules other than ethanol and water in any drink that gives distillates their flavor), and how the mycology of both environment and storage impart the taste and finer flavor to the end-product.Whenever the book seemed to become a bit too dry, Rogers would masterfully become facetious, writing, “Few three-word phrases inspire less confidence than “according to yelp” or “23% of people do not obtain hangovers (the scientific term for them is “jerks”).” It’s necessary to remember that Rogers is not a scientist, but instead a journalist interested in science. The book is serious; it just doesn’t take itself too seriously. Rogers impressed me most by projecting the easy method alcohol can and should have a put in life. Most people my age are sots. They have no class. Handling alcohol with style is an instant point of difference the classy have over other drinkers. Rogers makes you wish to rise above the “whoever drinks more” competitions, and to become a classy drinker who would never sucb to a thing as trite as peer pressure. I half expected Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart photographs at the end of the book to help as representative the end, Rogers said it best: “People sometimes think science is about discovery. But the action in science, the fun part of doing it (or reading about it), isn’t answers. It’s questions, the items we don’t know. Behind every step of the process that produces fermented beverages and then distills those into spirits, there is deep science, with a lot of researchers trying to figure it all out.”I’m still trying to figure it all out. What I do know is that I’ve been impressed. Rogers’ book is a triumph. He has written a unbelievable book, and we will have to live with the consequences.
For those who wish to understand the science behind the making of alcoholic spirits, this is the book. One does not have to be a chemistry expert to grasp the science. Rogers presents the science in an entertaining and informative way. I thought he did an perfect job of making the book accessible. I actually loved this book, underlining much of the text. Rogers was actually quite humorous in much of his presentation. Sure, one could read more complex texts on the topic, but this is an accurate book that is meant for a public that appreciates distilled and fermented spirits and would like to know how they got that way.
As one grows older we often come to the realization of our own mortality. Sometimes we start to seek out answers to the a lot of questions concerning life and death. This interesting and informative 282 page soft cover (Life after death: the burden of proof by Deepak Chopra) books explores the question of what happens to us when we e author is well known for his expertise in Eastern religion and philosophy. In this book combines other belief systems along with some science to create the case for our consciousness surviving physical death. Even though I found his approach intriguing; nevertheless, I am not fully convinced intellectually that he created a case for consciousness surviving after we is book is organized into two parts. Part one covers death at the door, the cure for dying, death grants three wishes, escaping the noose, the path to hell, ghosts, the invisible thread, seeing the soul, the magical words, surviving the storm, tutorials and messengers, and the dream continues. The second part explains the burden of proof.If you interested in esoteric answers to what happens after we die you may wish to check out this book.Rating: 4 Stars. Joseph J. Truncale (Author: Chair/Seated Tai chi, Qigong, and Yoga stretching for seniors and the physically challenged).
I enjoyed the simple conversational flow along with the association to quantum physics and what I see as the heart of the gospel of Christ (the mystery revealed of Christ in us where our life is hidden in and one with God). Deepak explains the reality of life as Consciousness, which I correlate to the Mind of Christ which holds all things together. He speaks of a void or gap between the most min physical substance where creation arises from, where consciousness persists. He speaks of a mental spiritual state where a person can be still and apprehend this consciousness which I associate with being still (no mind or emotional jabber) and knowing God. I appreciate the fearlessness of what he illustrates as the fearless goodness of our source in the creative mind and being of God who shares his consciousness with us. I recommend this book to those who have or wish to walk in the globe but not of the globe in fearless love.
Chopra offers a compelling book complete with two distinct sections; Life After Death, and The Burden of Proof. The first half deals with Chopra's feelings regarding the spiritual afterlife based on his research of both western and eastern religions. The second section changes gears entirely with a scientific and logical ysis of what occurs after the physical body expires. The two sections are quite dissimilar and my positive rating is only geared toward the second e Life After Death section of the book reads like a sermon. It would be inappropriate to suggest the thoughts of a globe renown thinker such as Chopra do not have value; however, this section spoke of the afterlife with a precision Chopra can not possibly know, and thus his beliefs were meshed with unsubstantiated facts which is e second half of the book, The Burden of Proof, is an absolute success and fully refreshing in its approach. Chopra immediately deals with the inability of science to properly define certain aspects in life. Chopra explains, "If one could calculate every vibration of a violinist's bow while playing a Beethoven sonata, that wouldn't explain melody or its beauty" and thus along the same line of thinking, science may indeed one day be able to explain all physical reality, yet science may never be able to fully explain the emotion we derive from that very e most invigorating element of this section was Chopra's assessment of science and energy. Humans consume water and air, thus the atoms that comprise these elements become the atoms that create up the physical components of a human, including the brain. Therefore, those very atoms eventually become part of what gives us life, but from a purely scientific point of view, they are still the same physical atoms. Chopra asserts it is thus quite possible that the very life breathed into atoms during that change might not be from the physical, but from a field that drives life and the mental phenomena that is beyond the physical nature of much as a radio is merely a transmitter of music, a brain could simply be a transmitter of human conciseness (thoughts, memory and beliefs). Chopra acknowledges that it is possible this consciousness could in fact be physical and science has just not yet discovered how to see or measure such an element. This reads not as an admission but as a statement that in the very least, the current base of knowledge surrounding the physical elements of life and death are positively limited and offer no explanation where Chopra offers spite the profound content, Chopra displays some weakness when confusing some of his conclusions with logical fallacy, such as cherry picking results, particularly pertaining to his explanation of prayers and other unexplained phenomena. Despite this short coming, the abundance of thought provoking material easily over compensates and the material can be valued by merely passing over these st of Chopra's thoughts are extremely reflective and will require a primary scientific understanding of terms. Perhaps the largest appeal is that Chopra presents a study of the afterlife that melds both science and religion together in a manner that would be acceptable to each. I highly recommend this book (the second half specifically) to all critical thinkers especially those with conflicting views. At worst, Chopra will not leave you disappointed; at best, Chopra will support shape your expectation of life after death.* Title Refers specifically to Second Half of the Book - the Burden of Proof - as I found the first section unrewarding.
I love this guy! He is so intriguing. I have seen him on TV and always thought what he said created sense. So I bought this book... my first Deepak Chopra book. I feel that he has a lot of necessary things to say, but uses long confusing sentences when he could have easily gotten away with a simpler one. I found myself rereading sentence after sentence. Its not that the vocabulary was difficult, its just that some of the wording can be a bit convoluted. Here is an example.. picked out of the book..."If there is only one reality, as the rishis declare, then life is not a struggle between amazing and evil, but a tangled web where all actions, amazing and bad, move us closer to reality or deeper into illusion."I mean really, that was a random example, but I had to read that twice... slowly, to obtain what he was saying."the erosion of faith has not left Paradise untouched."So does that mean it left Paradise touched? I am not sure. The whole book is like that. But, when you finally 'get' what he is saying, it is truly profound. It just takes awhile. Or maybe its just me.
Personally, I found this book extremely enlightening. I understand that much (if not all) of the book is based on philosophies possibly fueled by hope, after all we don't really know what happens in the after life, or even if there is one. However, this book makes sense. Some here will say that Mr. Chopra is lying - I don't think so. The book is a break down of theories, and I think the author did an awesome job compiling all those theories (including the Bible) and generating a notice - that there is an afterlife, that we are indeed aware of our soul, and that we can cultivate the greatness of our soul should we choose to. Yes there is the idea that you "choose" your afterlife, and again some people shun the book for that. However, one must understand that the philosophy here is that we do indeed "choose" our life, how we think, how we see the world, even how we materialize the globe - so if we make the world, why not the afterlife as well?Perhaps the only idea that left me a small shaken, was the idea that the afterlife is essentially a level beyond, but co-existent with our own. In other words - everything is here, in front of you, including the afterlife. The issue here, is that when die we become consciousness - and to me (at least to me) it translates into not seeing my family ever again. While Mr. Chopra insists that the "person" is never truly gone, but is actually everywhere...still, deep down I still hope to see my family again as I know them.I value his knowledge, and his ability to tackle this subject with amazing tact. I must admit that this is the first book I have ever read by Mr. Chopra - and I do believe that it is better to be acquainted with his other works before reading this one. Truly, I took the reading of this book into little steps, because the topic matter, the language, and his ideas are sometimes hard to not go into this book expecting yet another interpretation of Biblical verses. Understand that there have been, and always will be other religions, philosophies and ideas outside the Christian belief, before you rank this book a "blasphemy" as some other readers have done. If your brain and soul can only accept Christianity - stick with it, and leave these books to other seekers.
I've just now finished reading this the first time through and plan to read it again because I enjoyed it so much. Deepak is one of my favorite writers because he makes highly complex subjects and systems of thought much easier to understand. I have been fascinated and wondered what the essence of life--and consciousness--is for years, and this helps to explain that consciousness survives physical death. If you have any curiosity about life beyond this existence, I highly encourage you to read this book.
If you've known me for any length of time, you probably know I am obsessed with the subject of life after death. It's probably the effect of being told for the first 18 years of my life that this life really didn't matter except as the try for whether you go to heaven or hell. Whatever, the reason, I still have this fascination with peeking behind the veil and seeing what's on the other side. I don't know how a lot of books I've read on near death experiences and life after death. But, of all the books I have read, I think Deepak Chopra's "Life After Death, the Burden of Proof" is probably my e book doesn't test to prove life after death merely by talking about NDEs. It's really more about cosmology and the nature of reality than it is about trying to track the soul after we die. Chopra draws deeply from an ancient Indian tradition called "Vedanta". I found it fascinating that throughout the book, he relates latest scientific discoveries to ancient religious traditions. The book looks at at death and the universe completely opposite from the method Christianity and a lot of religions view death and the method modern scientists view the material universe. Death is seen as a miracle, related to the miracle of birth. I was taught that death entered the globe through sin and is the enemy. Something to fear. The Devil and Death are the opponent and God rescues us. Chopra says death is a miracle that: * Replaces time with timelessness * Stretches the boundaries of zone to infinity * Reveals the source of life * Brings a fresh method of knowing that lies beyond the five senses * Reveals the underlying intelligence that organizes and sustains creation (what most of us would call God)Rather than seeing the Universe as something that just "happened", the book sees the material globe as having arisen from Consciousness. Science has been trying to figure out what consciousness is and how it has arisen from a Huge Bang of inanimate material. That is once science figure out that it hasn't just always been here. Chopra's approach, and what he argues science is uncovering, is that the material globe has actually arisen from Consciousness. It's not the "spiritual" globe that is unreal, it's the material globe that is the illusion. or the projection. The method he weaves scientific discovery with the ancient traditions of the Indian rishis is very interesting. It reminds me of an illustration I saw presented by a theologian a lot of years ago. Scientists arrive at the top of the mountain to explore a theologian sitting there. The theologian looks up and says "What took you so long?" Religion has taught us the Universe wasn't always here. Religion has taught us that some Intelligence made the material world. Religion has taught us there is design and purpose for what we see. Religion has taught us that we are more than our bodies (our brains).The afterlife begins to create sense when you take the approach that consciousness is not in the brain. But, the brain is more like a receiver of consciousness. This is a model being investigated by some neuroscientists. Science cannot tell us how the brain works. We can see it working, various parts lighting up as we think or dream. But, we are obviously more than just our brains. For example, while a lot of people believe that our brains produce our thoughts, thoughts actually can change brain chemistry. Since are somewhat effective in treating depression one could say changing one's brain chemistry can change one's thoughts. However, talk therapy works as well and can produce changes in brain chemistry. Meditation can produce changes in brain chemistry. It's definitely not a one method street. While depression can be caused by chemical imbalances, a depressing happening can lead to those chemical imbalances. So, our thoughts are clearly not only produced by our brain chemistry. Something, outside of our brain, is the observer, the e book does touch on Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and OOBEs (Out Of Body Experiences). It also talks about various levels of reality from the physical all the method up to the ultimate level (called the Akashic field in this book). The heavens and hells experienced by people who have had NDEs are temporary stops along the method (as a lot of who have had NDEs have reported). They are largely made by the mind and the expectation of the person dying. Of course, scientists have said this all along- they're purely subjective experiences and do not reflect reality. But, this brings us to the question as to what the nature of reality is. If you're in a dream and you can't wake up, that is reality to you. We call this reality because it's a shared experience. But, reality is whatever your senses tell you it is. None of us experiences reality directly (in this body anyway). How much do our minds make "reality"?At the point of death, our ties to the physical globe fall away and we start to experience more directly the other two realms (the subtle globe the the globe of pure consciousness). Chopra talks about how we can start to shift our focus on these realms of reality before we the second part of the book, Chopra talks about the burden of proof. He addresses the following five questions: * Is Akasha true (the realm of pure consciousness, the Void from which all creation flows)? * Does the mind extend beyond the brain? * Is the universe aware? * Does consciousness have a basis outside of time and space? * Can our beliefs shape reality?If we can respond all of these questions in the affirmative, it's not so hard to believe that we survive the death of our bodies (really the death of our brains since that is where the mind is said to reside). Chopra links the question about Akasha to what scientists are discovering about the ultimate nature of the universe. He gets into some beautiful complex physics that I have to confess I don't really understand. But, what is interesting is that the word Akasha has an English equivalent- ether. Up until the late 1800s scientists believed there was no "void" in zone but everything was transmitted through the ether. Physicists more recently have gone back to a model that says zone is full of activity in the form of invisible fluctuations in the quantum field. Physicists have come up with a Zero Point Field which includes not just what we see in the universe but everything that could possibly exists. This "field of fields", this seething exchange of energy is what everything that exists pops into and out of existence. The Zero Point field has been calculated to include 10 to the 40th power more energy than the visible universe. This sounds a lot like what religion has been telling us that the unseen is incredibly more strong than the at latest paragraph may have been over your head (it's over mine). Chopra goes on and gives some ogies that are very helpful. Basically what he is positing it that our physical globe is projected from a nonmaterial source. The invisible globe comes first. And, reality increases the closer one gets to the source. As we die, we do not blink out of existence. We move from the projected to the e next chapters go on to address the other questions asked above. Chopra concludes with a poem by Rabgindranath Tagore. He only gives part of it. But, I've looked up the whole thing. Some of the words in this translation are slightly various than Chopra presented them. I like this one better. I've been reflecting on this for the latest few days and it has brought me comfort. I fear death because it's a journey into the unknown. But, this poem relates death to birth.I was not aware of the momentwhen I first crossed the threshold of this life.What was the power that created me begin out into this vast mysterylike a bud in the forest at midnight!When in the morning I looked upon the lightI felt in a moment that I was no stranger in this world,that the inscrutable without name and formhad taken me in its arms in the form of my own mother.Even so, in death the same unknown will appear as ever known to me.And because I love this life,I know I shall love death as e kid cries outwhen from the right breast the mother takes it away,in the very next moment to search in the left one its consolation.
The book attempts to present various perspectives on whether or not there is life after death. It covers everything from death to consciousness to reincarnation and e best part of the book was the stories. The Indian tale of Sativri, who doesn't wish Yama (death) to take her husband, is an underlying theme as Deepak tells it in segments throughout the book. Mellen-Thomas Benedict's hour and a half near-death experience was another highlight. His journey to the other side was a very special experience, even among NDE's. Another story on reincarnation told of a boy who was obsessed with warrior planes from WWII. He told his parents he died in Iwo Jima, giving them names and dates, which were all e book offers amazing insights and perspectives from both the scientific and spiritual views, and from East and West philosophies. It helps that Deepak knows the Indian culture. One viewpoint I have never heard before was that when you call on your memory, you are actually accessing the Akashic finitely worth reading.
Deepak Chopra is so awesome to me. He manages to merge spirituality, ancient folklore and science together to create a substantial book on life after death. In fact, he really explains what life means. He brings in Eastern religions to support drive home his ideas, and it becomes very simple to understand the likelihood of life after life. I am someone who needs more than theories to believe something. I need proof, at least some level of it. As I read more and more about this topic matter, however, my mind is opening to the idea that belief is half the battle. We need to simply experience what is around us to know--really know--that there is no out there out there. There is virtually no materialism in the method that we believe there is. And there is no separation between me and t being completely versed in eastern religions, this book manages to bring in the ones that discuss their very persuasive ideas that there is indeed a life beyond what we see before out eyes. You really start to understand just how temporary everything is anyways. Even our thoughts! They come and go, flitting in and out of existence as we know it.I strongly recommend this book for anyone in need of understanding if there is more to this life than the life we live on automatic everyday. This will create you stop and consider a grander possibility. It will create you look larger than just with your eyes. If you have ever lost anyone in your life, this will support bring peace in knowing that they aren't really "lost" at all. What a amazing book.
I've read this story a few times over a lot of years to the point that I knew much of it before I opened the book. Still enjoyable. Christie led the method in quality writing and very subtle, clever mysteries. This is a unbelievable example of her r those who complain about a short work, yep. That's what happens in a short story. It is harder to write a amazing short story than a full length one because a short story still requires the same primary parts to occur but must be accomplished in far fewer words. It's called craftmanship. Watch the master.
Sometimes you just wish to read an Agatha Christie that you hadn't heard of. Such was the case here. I wasn't disappointed except that it was quite short---I did know that going in. The atmosphere felt right, the characters were appropriate and it had a very neat twist at the end. Quite satisfactory.
As usual very high standard of short stories, though not the best in my view (I would rank labour or Hercules as better). The most memorable of these stories is the one about the pudding, which is very fun, though with an overconvoluted plot which would not really occur in true life (.. but again this is fiction right, and the hero of Poirot is hardly realistic, which is also what makes him likeable). Note that the latest story isn't with Poirot but with Ms Marple: to be honest not my cup of tea, as I much prefer Poirot, but in comparison with almost any crime writers out there, still head and shoulders above today's standards.
I discovered the Agatha Christie novels back in my mid 20's, and I was hooked after finishing the first one, which was one of her Miss Marple mystery novels. Later I discovered the Hercule Poirot stories and read any number of those too. Not sure if I read them all, it'a been some decades since then, but if I saw one, I read it. So when I just recently saw this small tale on Amazon, knowing I had never seen it before, I just had to read it.When it comes to an Agatha Christie story, I never bother with reading reviews. Either you love her or you don't. I love her stories, every one I ever came across. I knew I would have fun this story too. And I is was a really fast read, but a delightful small tale. I am so glad to have found it.
Poirot reluctantly takes an assignment to search a stolen ruby and restore it to the owner without any publicity. It is a very sensitive situation for a young prince who has been entertaining a young woman who admires and then steals a ruby he is having restart for his fiancé back home. Poirot is convinced to take the case and travel to an old English manor house for a promised old fashioned English Christmas, despite having to leave his own cozy flat which is warm with central heating.
I read a lot of Agatha Christie's books growing up. I wasn't aware of all the short stories with Poirot. I enjoyed this story so much. The best part is that they each stand alone. You don't have to obtain them in order!
When I was younger, I was not a fan of Agatha Christie's style of writing, then I started watching the perfect performances of David Suchet as the Belgian sleuth and found myself completely I was reading "The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding," I found that the pictures in my head (you do have pictures in your head when you read, right?) were a re-run of the Poirot episode on PBS. For me, there was no mystery because I knew the story and was happy to realize that I found some of the dialog in the story seemed to be the same as in the teleplay.If you haven't read any of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels and stories, this would create an perfect starter. As much as I avoided her books in the past, I search myself now wanting to read more.
This is a story that has been shown on television, and has been included in printed versions under different names. I enjoyed reading this book very much as it tells not only a story but reveals a bit of Poirot's personality and thinking process. As in a lot of of Agatha Christie's novels, you hold thinking that you know 'who did it', but search out you are not correct. Read this book without outside distractions. It's a keeper!
Written by Agatha Christie, the story is excellent of course. Poirot finds himself at a manor house for a traditional English Christmas at the request of the Home Office. The atmosphere of the time and put is wonderful. Poirot with the support of some delightful teenagers is able to explore and return a precious jewel, thereby avoiding an international incident. I would love it to have been a novel rather than a short story.
This is a delightful short story by Agatha Christy, featuring everyone's favourite Belgian, Hercule Poirot. Makes me feel like rereading every single Poirot story! If Agatha Christy is your cup of tea, you will love this.
"Story Proof is a amazing book, deserving to be read by masses of people. . . "Tea time was over. I looked out the window of the common room down on Buccleuch Street. The sky, streets, and buildings of Edinburgh were gray again like the clouds. Then Simon spoke up, "Back to work boys!" One by one we stood up and shuffled for the door. As we headed out, I spoke to my professor. I had to obtain something off my chest. "Jim," I said, "I'm having a hard time. . . getting my head around the book you asked me to read."I waited a bit anxiously for his response. He looked at me, smiled, and said, "Well, reading a book sometimes is like hitting yourself over the head with a book." I laughed and promised that I would hold trying. The material was complex and fresh to me, but it also was dull and poorly written. Besides learning about communication theory, I was learning that some of the brightest academics in the globe are poor seph Williams' amazing book, "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace" tells us in clear and almost scientific terms what makes for poor writing and how we can improve it. The clear and graceful style tightly defined by Williams actually decreases stress placed on short-term memory, thus helping us parse sentences more easily. Any writer, especially academics, can benefit greatly from the sage tip of Joseph Williams.But style, clarity, and grace may not be enough. What is missing? According to Kendall Haven, story is missing, and Haven's book, "Story Proof" convincingly demonstrates that story is the essential element of amazing writing. And this is not just for fiction. Haven claims that we can "storify" expository prose, arguments, and scientific discourse. And by so doing, we can create our writing more interesting and more memorable.Unfortunately, the main issue with "Story Proof" is that it is not storified, so reading it may be a small bit like hitting yourself over your head. But to be fair, I'm sure that Haven intentionally did not storify "Story Proof," and he says that we don't need to storify all the info we present, but I'm just saying. . . perhaps the book could have benefited from more spite of this problem, "Story Proof" rocks because story rocks, and Haven shows us why. He presents abundant research that shows we are hardwired to think in stories. Our brains are designed to create sense and remember info through stories.Haven claims that the scientific proof for story is overwhelming and uncontested, and I think he is correct. But on my first reading, I felt sometimes lost in a mighty load of story proof that didn't seem to always fit into to long and coherent argument. Actually, it may, but either that argument needs more coherence, or I need to read it again and search spite of this whiny complaint, "Story Proof" is still a amazing book, and it deserves to be read by masses of people, academics (especially academics), but also school teachers, business people, and public speakers. The more people who read this book and apply its ideas, the the less we will hear snoring in classrooms and boardrooms, and the more people will remember and have fun the info they r me, Kendall Haven's largest contribution is his rigorous definition of story. He delineates 8 elements of story, and claims that when we vary these elements when presenting information, we can predict differential recall and understanding in our listeners. Haven's definition of story is a amazing one, and it fits with definitions given by other authors such as Jonathan Gottschall who in "The Storytelling Animal" defines story as "Character + Predicament + Attempted Extrication."Here are Haven's eight essential elements of story. A amazing story has (1) a main character, who has (2) hero traits, that create her compelling. The hero (3) acts to reach a goal and (4) possesses a motive for why that goal is important. As the hero acts to reach that goal, she faces (5) conflicts and issues that block her, and these conflicts and issues make (6) risks and dangers. As she acts to overcome conflicts, problems, risks, and dangers, she (7) struggles to reach her goal, and all this happens in the context of (8) sensory info that create the story feel real.Other traits could be added to this definition. For example, we could create a distinction between the internal and external conflicts that a hero faces in amazing stories, and we could talk about the main character's fatal flaw, which she must overcome in order to reach her goal. For example, in the near excellent movie "Flight" directed by Robert Zemeckis, the main character, "Whip," has serious private internal conflicts and flaws that he must overcome, and these internal problems hook viewers making us root for Whip.But despite these issues, "Story Proof" is an invaluable book, and it is special in that perhaps more than any other book in the world, it subsumes a vast amount of research similar to the power of story. It's reference list alone is a valuable resource, (which could be improved if page numbers were given with the quotations). But for anyone interested in the power of story, for anyone wanting to improve their own story-telling, and for any scholar who wants to research the power of story, "Story Proof" is an outstanding resource.
I am reading this for a graduate storytelling class in Library School. So far I am very frustrated with the book because of the repetition. The author makes the assertion that storytelling is vital to learning, memory, etc. And then restates the same thing in slightly various language. And then does it again. The ironic thing is that I hold yearning for more of a narrative in the delivery, but it's beautiful dry.
A heavy amount of work and thought went into this book and I'm so glad Kendall took it on so I didn't have to :). It is a important read for storytellers and educators to use the power of story to introduce fresh ideas, information and perhaps values to their audiences and students. When you truly understand the power of story on each of us who are hard wired to learn that way, you can't possibly take storytelling less than deadly seriously.
This is needed for a class I am taking. The book is very interesting and really gives a amazing perspective on "Story" and how to write one effectively to obtain info as well as your point across without losing your reader.
StoryBranding(TM) 2.0: Creating Standout Brands Through the Purpose of StoryThe topic of stories has received a amazing deal of attention as of late. But upon close ysis the word 'story' is quite fuzzy and has a lot of meanings. What is a story really? Something with a beginning, middle and end? A white lie? A news report? You'd be surprised at what can be found out just researching this question, which is what Kendall Haven did for 10 years while writing this is is THE book about stories, what they are and why they are so powerful. No other comes close. If you have even the slightest interest in story as a tool to enhance communication to persuade, engage audiences, or just to entertain, this is not only a must read, it should be a first read. I refer to it often and probably will for a long time. It's incredibly well researched, and very well written. Chapter one is worth the entire price of the book and then some.
This was a needed text for my Storytelling class, and I have to say, it wasn't a favorite by any means. I found parts of this to be awfully dry in places, particularly chapter nine when the author is relating the findings of all these various studies, and terribly technical when he's talking about how the brain processes stories. I also felt like the purpose of this book was kind of a "preaching to the choir" for me personally, because I obviously feel storytelling and stories are important, or I would a) be working with children b) wish to be a Youth Services librarian or c) be taking this course. I feel like the general gist of this book could have been achieved for the purpose of this class by simply reading some at being said, here's what the author was trying to obtain across: stories have the power to catch your attention and draw you in. They are easier to comprehend than other types of nonfiction/technical writing, and by exposing kids to stories, you're setting them up for an easier time of it in school when it comes time for them to begin writing. Stories even translate to higher math/science skills. When people use stories to teach their main concepts, the people listening pick up the main ideas and info more easily, and can more readily recall them. Storytelling = Good. So, in a nutshell, here's a one line sentence to sum up this book: Read to your kids!A NOTE ON THE KINDLE FORMAT: I wanted to give a heads-up that the Kindle edition of this title has some serious formatting issues, particularly in chapter nine with the placement of the small blurbs in boxes that recount a main idea. They're scattered throughout the chapter, sometimes before the actual text appeared in the book. There are also weird line breaks and spacing issues, so if this is something that will potentially bother you, pick up the print edition and skip the Kindle.
I'm interested in the brain science of storytelling and so was excited to learn about this book. And I was encouraged to read the opening chapters where the author correctly discusses the need for a better definition of story and a more complete understanding of why it's so effective and when to use it.But with each chapter, I found the book was simply not very good. For instance, chapter 9, which supposedly summarizes the vast research on storytelling, simply quotes various researchers who say vague things like "story is the foundation of all human understanding" and "story facilitates social connections." No data given to back this up. Just paragraph after paragraph of other people's quotes. Although the bibliography includes all the source research, which presumably I must now look up and read on my e brain science is interesting but woefully incomplete. It suffers from the same issue as chapter 9; vague rhetorical assertions that we are "hard-wired from birth to answer to story". That as infants we recognize faces (hero), can direct our gaze to where others are pointing (goal), can infer cause-effect relationships (outcome). There are better books that acc for the brain science behind story, such as the chemical dopamine is released when we listen to e book's largest failing is how it blithely asserts EVERTHING can be (is best) converted to story, but it doesn't tell us HOW to convert facts into story. For instance, if I'm an engineer talking to other engineers about a fresh technology, where is the character of that story? What is the conflict? It's not a easy matter to convert a list of necessary facts into a narrative arc. The author never addresses e most helpful sections give concrete examples of how to use storytelling in education. For instance, to create a classroom of students be more motivated to practice their Mozart, a teacher could begin by telling them the story of Mozart, how he grew up a kid prodigy, his struggles with deafness, etc. Bringing Mozart to life as a true person makes it more interesting to study his music. I thought that was a amazing concrete example.Unfortunately, there is not enough concrete examples of HOW to use storytelling. And the brain science and research is summarized vaguely and incompletely. So, dreadfully disappointed with the lack of info in this book.
A storyteller's best friend. I so appreciate the method that Kendall has brought this valuable research together. It proves what we tellers have known all along, that stories provide the shortest distance to retaining information, loving learning, and feeling connected to the human race.
I wanted to like this book, but, unlike a amazing story, it did not build to anything I cared about. Instead the author kept telling the reader about how a lot of articles and books he'd read to write this book (imagine!), and that they all proved that story was indeed, powerful. I suppose it could serve as a collection of references, but the treatment is not academic nor popular. I'm not sure what it is but it didn't do the topic justice.
I'm an engineer, so by natural too rational. Though not religious, I am spiritual. As I neared 40 at the time of reading Eben's book, more anxiety and stress came about into my life. Complimenting these problems are natural questions about my own mortality because a lot of my anxiety and stress arose from psychosomatic health issues. I could create myself sick to my stomach with just a thought about some imagined health problem in a matter of , I found amazing solace in knowing that a neurosurgeon, an individual who is supposed to be highly rational and scientific in nature--thus more likely to reject the notions of an after-life--wrote this e premise is based on the fact that Eben contracted meningitis and was clinically brain-dead for 7 days. During these seven days, he laid in a comatose state and embarked on a journey to the afterlife. His contention is THERE IS an afterlife and a soul because his thoughts and his experiences existed outside of the time and realm of his body which laid in a comatose state for those 7 ough you can search evidence from other neurosurgeons refuting Eben's claims of a afterlife journey, I'm inclined to believe Eben. I speak from my own experiences of being spooked in buildings and on ships. After leaving I would find on the Internet and search rumors that those locations are haunted, which explained my uneasy feelings the entire time.
An awesome story written by someone who is beyond reproach as far as the entire thing being explained away as fantasy or a dream of what he wanted things to be. Dr. Alexander does a amazing job of speaking to the layperson on his profession, the brain and how it functions, and he lays out clearly how what happened to him truly was medically impossible. A short book at under 200 pages, which makes it a fast read, but don't allow that fool you, it is a strong message.
I couldn't place this down once I started. The context of the author's life is so necessary to his message, as his background and his experience resonate throughout the book as it interweaves his doctors' and family's struggles during his illness, with his experiences in the globe beyond and his thoughts afterward.I learned about this book while deep in my own reading about quantum physics and the reality of existence, about consciousness as our ground of being. Reading of Eben Alexander's experience and his examination of it renders vividly private my other theoretical, philosophical and religious readings. There is a growing mutual understanding afoot, and each of us has the potential to use our experiences of it to increase it!
This book is perfect marketing material for Northeastern University, a Boston-area university of which the author (JA) is currently president. The idea of protecting graduates from obsolescence at the hands (effectors?) of robots and AI will be appealing to a lot of students and their parents. The school’s “co-op” program, which features something like internships integrated more directly than usual into the university’s curriculum, sounds very exciting; I wondered how a program like that might have shaped my career had it been available to me when I was in college (assuming I’d been wise enough at that age to take advantage of it).But the book’s grander vision of what a university should be — a launching pad for inserting students into economic life, and a maintenance garage for keeping them competitive throughout their careers — is narrow and inadequate. While JA’s pleading in defense of humanities and liberal arts is an necessary and welcome theme in the book, he grounds his argument on those subjects’ instrumental value in teaching economically useful skills that AI can’t (as yet) replicate. More generally, his view of the skills that should be imparted to college students is in some ways naive, some necessary aspects of implementation aren’t thought through, and his hype reaches occasionally absurd heights.JA proposes to counterbalance the rise of robotics with “humanics.” One aspect of this field is reflected in three “new literacies”:a) “Technological Literacy,” knowledge of mathematics, coding and primary engineering principles;b) “Data Literacy,” meaning the ability to use data, and also to understand its limitations; andc) “Human Literacy,” which “equips us for the social milieu, giving us the power to communicate, engage with others, and tap into out human capacity for grace and beauty” (@59).Of these, “data literacy” might be the newest type — if one overlooks its roots in classical rhetoric and the ysis of arguments. (Unfortunately, the exposition of this literacy seems a small illiterate, as when it this overestimates the power of correlations: “Based on the correlations we discover, we are able to understand the true meaning of the info and then extrapolate accurate predictions from it,”@57.) On the other hand, the clumsily-named “human literacy” seems like something universities have been interested in for decades, if not centuries. “Technological literacy” too is hardly new: at least regarding coding, it’s something a lot of universities have latched on to in latest years. It’s puzzling, though, why engineering should be emphasized to the exclusion of natural science. Nor is JA’s rationale entirely persuasive when it comes to why coding should be a needed piece of the curriculum: “Because coding is the lingua franca of the digital world, everyone should be conversant in it” (55). Was everyone “conversant” in mechanics when machines were the dominant technology globally? Alternatively, since technologies like CRISPR will no doubt lead to a rise in “bathtub biotech,” why shouldn’t everyone be conversant in genetic manipulation? (Maybe the method to beat down the threat of AI is to make some fresh *real* I.) This isn’t to say it would necessarily be a poor idea for more people to learn coding — but JA’s argument is very superficial. It’s not the only put in the book where necessary problems are glossed plementing these in the “humanics” toolbox are the four “cognitive capacities”:i) Critical Thinking, “which is about yzing ideas skillfully and then applying them fruitfully” (@62);ii) Systems Thinking, which “sees the info and the entire tableau, exercising our mental strength to weigh complexity while also testing our grasp on multiple strands of thought” (@66);iii) Entrepreneurship, which JA does not define, but which “should be a baseline capacity for all college learners,” and which “functions in two dimensions,” including “the traditional start-up model,” and “the context of established institutions and businesses” (@67); andiv) “Cultural Agility,” “the mega-competency that enables specialists to perform successfully in cross-cultural situations” (quoting Paula Caligiuri), which “requires a deep enough immersion in a culture [sic] so that we can fit seamlessly into multicultural squads or obtain results from people who have dramatically various lives from our own” (@71).Each of these definitions seems to me problematic. Aside from the question of what “fruitful” app means, surely critical thinking contains yzing ideas and *rejecting* some of them. It also contains a wide range of activities that overlaps with “data literacy,” such as evaluating both the premises and conclusions of arguments, as well as whether the latter are well-based on the former. In any case, this is one of the most traditional functions of a university, going back to the University of Bologna, founded over 900 years ago as a school of law. “Systems thinking” is an ambiguous term: one of the characteristics of a “system” is that it has a boundary, yet JA seems to think of it as a kind of holism. Often a amazing use of critical thinking is to question whether system boundaries are appropriate, but JA doesn’t connect these two faculties. The definition of “cultural agility” is by turns unclear and troubling. How can “immersion in a culture” enable us to fit seamlessly into multicultural teams? E.g., I was immersed in American culture growing up, and am now immersed in Japanese culture - would these immersions enable me to fit into a squad of Iraqis, Russians and Nigerians? Or was it the alienation of my immersion in the WASP culture of my Ivy League college in the 1970s that created me “agile”? Perhaps it’s immersion in a *multicultural* environment that enables students to become more multicultural? Clearly, this concept needs to be thought through some more. The troubling bit is the reference to “get[ting] results from people who have dramatically various lives from our own” — as with much else in the book, this introduces an instrumental, even exploitative element that we probably do NOT wish universities to be teaching.But it’s JA’s emphasis on entrepreneurship that I felt most missed the mark. (Is this a cognitive capacity, BTW, or is it instead a *behavior*?) First, it’s naïve for JA to believe that universities are terrific repositories of entrepreneurial experience, who can incubate and advise people in the business globe (“Universities, with their critical masses of active minds, are ideal entrepreneurial ecosystems,” @69). In my previous experience as a Silicon Valley lawyer and as a corporate VC, university personnel are generally among the most arrogant and least realistic people to deal with. They have very small comprehension of the difficulties of manufacturing at scale, of retaining technical staff, and of selling. Significantly, they also tend to have very small experience at failure, which is why they were able to obtain hired by and advance in their university positions. At least 9 out of 10 entrepreneurial ventures fail. What does the typical tenured professor, or university president, know about being out of a job and perhaps losing their home?It’s also naïve to believe that anyone can be, or would have fun being, an entrepreneur, just as not everyone is chop out to be a salesperson. To create this be a “baseline capacity” for all who attend college would terribly restrict the number of people admitted to university. Perhaps some would offer the counterargument that entrepreneurism is a “capacity” that can be taught, like coding. So allow me ask: how a lot of university graduates had to learn calculus? In US 4-year universities, almost everyone. And yet how a lot of people remember it? How a lot of use it in their everyday lives? (This same argument applies to coding, BTW.) The fact that a topic is taught as a needed topic isn’t sufficient to turn it into a “baseline capacity” that people will use in their lives. Anyway, do we really *want* a society full of hustling entrepreneurs, like the Ferengi in the Star Trek mythoverse? And why would a society full of selfish optimizers be particularly robot-proof? Wouldn’t humanity’s best resistance to robots be a society that *departed* from the Homo economicus sort of “rationality,” instead of predictably embodying it?This latest question opens out on several other aspects of the book that troubled me. JA puts amazing shop by the views of “the C-suite,” i.e., the topmost levels of corporate management. Why are they particularly endowed with vision about what the job shop will be in the future, rather than in the next few years only? Capitalism has made a lot of of the issues we now face — rising inequality, environmental degradation, fresh technological forms of invasion of privacy and government repression; why should we look to its captains for a vision of what universities should be? Shouldn’t universities also be able to contemplate alternatives to capitalism? What about other functions of a university — to let students to deepen their understanding of political participation and citizenship, and to research, preserve and transmit culture and humanistic values not similar to earning a living? And what about the role of a university in developing and encouraging students’ *curiosity*? Like politics and inequality, which are mentioned only in passing, this isn’t a subject that receives any attention in this times JA’s pitch goes to absurd lengths. Take his exhortation that every course syllabus “ought to describe the four cognitive capacities developed through each step of study and discussion” (@74). This created me wonder how entrepreneurship should have been stressed in one of my favorite college courses, where we read most of James Joyce’s works. Should we have spent less time discussing Joyce’s style, humor and philosophical erudition, and concentrated more on the career of Leopold Bloom, the main hero of “Ulysses,” who spent the daytime hours of the novel roaming Dublin trying to sell ads in the newspaper that employed him? Should the prof in the Italian Renaissance paintings course I audited have spent less time showing us old paintings, and more on talking about how he got a gig advising the Italian government on restoring paintings after a flood in Florence? Should my undergrad seminar in astrophysics have been cancelled because, as my mother used to tease me with a smile, “You’re studying astronomy? Very nice. So, what kind of cash can you create as an astronomer”?My credulity was stretched beyond breaking point near the end of the book, in a passage outlining the lifetime experience of a “young learner” with a “multi-university network” in Boston, Charlotte, Seattle and Silicon Valley. She starts by taking computer science and business in Boston, then gets “co-ops” at Amazon and a top Seattle law firm, launches a social media venture, later takes some modules (along with members of her team) at a Silicon Valley-based institution to learn about VR, then goes to Charlotte a few years later to brush up on M&A before selling her company (@136-137). Come on, what percentage of the college-going population is going to have such an experience? Even at an Ivy League school only a little fraction of graduates will follow such a might attribute this absurd exaltation of entrepreneurship to a failure of critical thinking, but I think something else is at work. This vision that turns every student into a Zuckerberg — who BTW attended a college no more expensive than Northeastern, and without a “humanics” curriculum — illustrates the divergence between the marketing doent that the book is meant to be, and the serious consideration of future education that the unsuspecting reader might be expecting. Every parent wants to believe their son or daughter will turn into a star. And every university wants those parents to believe that their institution is the key to that dream.JA deserves a lot of credit for raising the national ranking of Northeastern from below #100 to around #40 in the years he has been in charge. And I can’t grudge him publishing a book like this to test to do the best for his school — it’s very well done. But if you’re looking for a more realistic appraisal of the future of education — and especially one that resists drinking the Silicon Valley Kool-Aid — you won’t search it here.
I bought this book out of interest since it had very amazing reviews from other readers. I was not disappointing as the book is very well written, informative, and interesting. The introductory chapters on the concept of infinity provide very clear explanations of the issues associated with defining what is the limit of very huge numbers. This book I would highly recommend to anybody who wanted to read a non-technical acc of the problems around infinity and to come away with a sound understanding of the what the term means.
I have been reading this book, sitting in Cafe's over a lot of a weekend. Stillwell's book motivates some of the most attractive concepts in the foundation of math, and computer science. It's well written; it actually engages you to read and understand the proofs (rather than just stating it), and is written in a style that is conversational, gives the historical context, and in a manner than you gain intuition from the proofs. The latter is what I really loved about this book. To me the chapters on Goodstein's theorem, and proving the completeness of prepositional/predicate logic really stood out. Math books usually tend to fall into two categories --- (1) dumbed down for the lay person, or (2) abstruse and terse (which forces you to beautiful much take a course on that topic to really understand the material). Stillwell's book is a rare breed that gives you serious insight, even when you read it in your spare time! To gain the most from this book, I suggest you simultaneously read complementary material from the web, on the a lot of subjects that Stillwell covers --- wikipedia, google, and academic write-ups are of amazing support in this regard. My summary: This book is a rare gem, and a must have in any person's bookshelf.
Price is a bit high, hence my rating.Didactically-talented, Stillwell gives a very amazing exposition of ordinals, along with Goodstein's theorem ; with emphasis on Emil Post's and Gerhard Gentzen's discoveries and proofs, with their relations to Gödel's theorems...All in all, an perfect overwiew as well as inroads to latest discoveries based on huge cardinals...
I have mixed feelings about this book. On the whole it is very well written. The life and hero of Kurt Gödel and his associates in the Vienna Circle and beyond are well described, also the relationship between Gödel and Einstein. Motivated in part perhaps by Gödel’s fear of death and feelings of incompleteness in the globe (apparently a leitmotif of both Gödel’s work and life), Gödel found a solution to Einstein’s field equations in which time is cyclical. Towards the end of the book we search a moving acc of this contribution of Gödel to Einstein’s cosmology. In general, the author also does an adequate job of describing Gödel’s amazing theorem and its impact on mathematics and philosophy. Where the book falls down, for me at least, is in its explanation of the proof of the theorem. I am a research mathematician (though admittedly not a logician) and as an undergraduate took a whole course on Gödel’s Proof (admittedly a long time ago). I recall understanding it all beautiful well at the time. I am dismayed therefore that I search the author’s acc of the same topic in this book (and she makes no attempt even to obtain into the gritty info of the proof) well nigh incomprehensible. Including the overall tactic of the argument, which she describes as being “the delightfully accessible part of the proof.” I am inclined to wonder whether the author herself has much understanding of this material. However, this point aside, this is a lovely book in which the author does a nice job of presenting the life and contributions of one of the amazing minds of the 20th century. I thoroughly recommend it.
This appreciation of the work and life of Kurt Gödel is a minor gem. Written by someone who met Gödel and had access to those who knew him, Goldstein achieves an explanation of the incompleteness theorems and their importance in the wider realm of human thought all the while weaving a gripping biography of this heroic but tortured ch more accessible than Godel’s Proof for those without a mathematics background the book includes enough biography and insight into the ultimate meaning of Godel’s ideas that it is worth reading even for those who have read and understood a more technical explanation.I can only search one true lacunae in this account. Late in life, Godel worked out a solution of Einstein’s field equations that allowed for a eternal recurrence of all things. It’s interesting that Godel, as he increasingly sucbed to paranoia, hit upon the same ideas as Nietzsche albeit from a mathematical rather than a philosophical perspective. Surely, there is some affinity between the two paranoiac brains that explains both geniuses acceptance of the same rather strange doctrine.But this is merely a minor omission. Goldstein’s work is worth reading both by those who understand the incompleteness theorems and those to whom all of this is new. In my opinion, Rebecca Goldstein is one of the most interesting and pertinent among those contemporary philosophers who write for the wider public. This book is no exception to her typical bonus for making the complex easy and the easy profound.
Goedel's Theorems are among the most necessary mathematical and philosophical contributions of the twentieth century, sounding the death-knell of certainty in formal logic. This book is not for everyone. It is a deep dive into the life of a quiet genius and his proof that formal mathematical systems are fundamentally limited. Goldstein writes with her usual clarity and precision, but the reader must be prepared to concentrate. The narrative does not require higher math, but it does require attention and a willingness to be challenged. I was blown away by Goedel's Theorems and their implications when I first studied them at MIT, and I was blown away again by reading this rich acc of the full historical and private context from which they rose. If you are interested in philosophy and philosophers, and in the foundations of modern thought, this book is highly recommended. It is an perfect companion to Goldstein's brilliant book on Baruch Spinoza, 'Betraying Spinoza.'
The first third of the book has quite a bit ofrepetition. Perhaps this was an attempt at establishinggreater breadth but it just comes across as loosely ybe the editor could have taken a cue from Cantor and deletedthe middle third of the text in which the author gives a ratherwatered down ver of the proof for incompleteness - thusfailing to live up to the book's e final part deals with some of the personalities aroundGodel at the institute and - having finished with the moretechnical material - makes for an easier read.
After finishing "Thr Latest Trial" I went back and read. "Burden of Proof" the second in the Kindle County series which I may or may not have read years ago. It's got a rather c I nvulted plot - at one point I felt I had reached the "oh, give me a break!" moment -but it fast y passed. What a story teller Turow is,as well as a man sensitive to the most profound dilemmas of the human condition: love, solitude, morality and the finality of death.
This. Is. Terrible. After reading "Presumed Innocent," which I consider one of the genre-breaking books in crime fiction during the past 20 years, I turned to this. The beginning starts off brilliantly as the first chapter is the excellent mix of pathos and plot setting. Everything, however, goes down hill from there. A self-pitying (ist) protagonist, aimless flashbacks, odd occurrences (and re-occurrences) by weak characters, and a plot that is convoluted (and seriously dated by today's financial standards), the book grows increasingly painful until the final page. Upon completing the work, I set it down, not with satisfaction, but with disgust at having wasted so much time. I gave it two stars instead of one probably because I admired Turow's first book so much that I wished this had been a better reading experience.
Proof of writing for a living and not much else. He leaves much of the explanation of his illness for you to guess about and even then it's stretches his credibility. Stay away, is my only recommendation. "Lest you buy the Koolaid.
This book is very unique in tying together the concepts of infinity, logic and computation, with a lot of clarity. I believe that a prior encounter with each of those subjects would be a prerequisite for a lot of or most readers. The book is both rigorous and providing the historical and psychological/cognitive aspects of how things came to be, allowing the philosophical gaps inherent to the standardized theory to become apparent to the avid a result, and in general, its treatment of incompleteness is one of the best I've come across to me specific points could have been created more explicit/detailed in the opening chapters of the book, such as going into detail into variants of the initial diagonalization argument, which are the core to much of the rest to come, as they are probably hard to come across elsewhere perhaps except for maybe in other books by the same author or in dusty arcane books on the subject. Hence a 4 stars.I am looking forward to completing reading the book, and then going through a second read of it!
Probably a better choice for most of us (including me) to read first, which I am glad I did. I was expecting a mathematical book about Goedel's incompleteness theorem, but this is really a biography of Kurt Goedel [Note: 'oe' is the standard substitute for an umlauted 'o' when one doesn't have the option of using the latter, which this text box doesn't provide.]Professor Goldstein does provide a simplified explanation of Goedel's incompleteness theorems (there are 2), and a reference to Godel's Proof , by Nagel, Newman, and Hofstadter, which she cites as a fuller presentation of the theorems themselves. Professor Goldstein's presentation of the theorems was, for me, a very helpful introduction which I am very glad to have read. It gives the reader a broad, but shallow overview of the forest, which should hold the reader from getting lost among the trees when tackling the actual proof, if s/he even chooses to do so, and it gives sufficient understanding to satisfy probably the amazing majority of so, the biography of Goedel is interesting in itself and well worth this enjoyable and well-written book first, then decide whether you wish to tackle Nagel, Newman, and Hofstadter. If you do, you will be better prepared for
Heartbreaking from beginning to end. Turrow takes "Sandy" so a lot of directions on his quest to create sense of his family's tragedy and deception. When you're not reading THE BURDEN OF PROOF, you are thinking about it. The secondary characters are fleshed out. The weak are exposed. The ruthless are humans. The plot line forces you to pay attention.
This book had a really amazing plot with a slightly surprising end. However the tale was spoilt by an over-indulgence of hero ysis that padded out the content to double the length than was necessary. A shame as the story could easily have been a five star if it had been simplified, but no, interest waned throughout the reading.
I know this writer has a lot of fans and sells lots of books, I can’t imagine why, I am an avid reader and this is the first book I ever felt was absolute trash, part writer, part psychiatrist, part poet and bas at all of e plot was total nonsenseFirst and latest book I buy from this author
As a paradoxical Christian-skeptic, I myself often discredited published NDEs as unbelievable means of generating income for the story teller. This book came recommended from my older brother, where as I may be considered bright by most, he is luminescent by comparison. So naturally, I devoured this book within mply incredible.Obviously written by a doctor, no detail was thought to be unimportant and so, the story was like that of fiction in it's sheer explation. However, the accompanying medical data shut out my laymen doubt by the 28th chapter.If you struggle with the idea of NDE accounts as I did, be you Christian or otherwise, I highly recommend this book in that it is certainly thought provoking at the very least.
Aoun gives a clear prediction of the future, and the only thing certain is change. The job shop will most likely change drastically with the rapid onset of mechanization, smarter software, and AI and not even currently high-paying jobs like doctors, lawyers, or financiers are safe. The key for educating the student of the future lies in what he calls cognitive capacities that only humans posses (for now). Amazing read for anyone employed in higher education.
Education is not only the means but the solution as well. Indeed, automation, AI and ML will create very, if not extremely, difficult to have jobs, work or office hours as we currently have in the near future. The first thing that are going to be automated will be activities, not carreers. But if carreers do not reinvent themselves, they will soon be replaced by machines. Author Joseph E. Aoun offers a private insight into what universities need to be looking at in order to renew the current curricula. A must read for anyone with curiosity who wants to know how academia should answer to nowadays and current technology trends.
John Stillwell's "Roads to Infinity" sounds like another "Gödel's theorem" book. Yes, it mentions it and gets into Gödel's popular theorems, a small bit. But, he just finds a easy alternative; he doesn't mention Gödel numbering. I've been through say Nagel's "Gödel's Proof." But, even then, I don't recall all this items about ordinals. John Stillwell shows George Cantor's genius a lot more by showing the Fourier yses roots of his ideas and George Cantor's ordinal numbers work. This is just a begin of what you can obtain from here, if you're not a phd logician/mathematician.If you think George Cantor's transfinite numbers is mindblowing, his work on ordinals to yse infinit cardinal numbers is . . . it shows how one can yse infinity far more than most people could ever dream.I'd like to say, that as usual, in John Stillwell's works, he always finds some modern easier short proof of results; otherwise, he references off. He gives examples when he can search simple examples, and just mentions hard problems(mostly in chapter supplements where they belong).In John Stillwell's other works, he loves to point out the induction definitions of arithmetic; in this book, he gives a lot more reason to take those seriously!Historically, one of the major reasons for proof was the inability to deal with infinity. Here, John Stillwell shows the affect infinity has had on proof. I think logical proof has proven to be more than we thought through the ages, so I don't think one should consider syllogisms discredited by modern studies of infinity and proof. But, I do like the latest results of the interplay between finite and infinit. And John's book . . . well, I don't think he does more than introduce one to these Oyestein Ore's "Number theory and its History", he gets into some number theory, some diophanine yses, where he shows some lead to infinity and some are finite. This has always suggested to me that determining when things are finite and when they are infinity, when they are compact or not seems to be an interesting question in mathematics(I can't say that I totally know lie theory; but, I have done some look ahead and found that some of the majory lie theory work of the twentieth century anyways has to do with compact and non-compact geometry). And so, the mathematics of the interplay between the finit and infinit at least excited me.
''For example, Roger Penrose created the incompleteness theorems central to his argument that our minds, whatever they are, cannot be digital computers.''This is a current, widespread dispute.''What Gödel’s theorems prove, he argues, is that even in our most technical, rule-bound thinking—that is, mathematics—we are engaging in truth-discovering processes that can’t be reduced to the mechanical procedures programmed into computers.''If mathematics is trusted (everyone does), Gödel's proof confirms human reason is more strong than any possible computer! Wow!''Notice that Penrose’s argument, in direct opposition to the postmodern interpretation of the previous paragraph, understands Gödel’s results to have left our mathematical knowledge largely intact. Gödel’s theorems don’t demonstrate the limits of the human mind, but rather the limits of computational models of the human mind (basically, models that reduce all thinking to rule-following).'' (25)IntroductionI A Platonist among the PositivistsII Hilbert and the FormalistsIII The Proof of IncompletenessIV Gödel’s IncompletenessNotesSuggested ReadingGoldstein covers Godel's incompleteness theorem and it's result on mathematics. She highlights the philosophical issues. Shows the metamathematical implications are more profound than the mathematical ones. She contains some biography of Godel's life, but she seems focused on explaining Godel's motives and goals more than events.Excellent description of Schlick and his Vienna circle, of which Godel was a member. The developments of the logical positivists and why they became so influential is explained. The milieu of post battle Vienna is described as 'the research laboratory for globe destruction'. (Page 69)"The overall subject was the moral and intellectual death and decay of all that had come before, and the need to construct entirely fresh methodologies, forms and foundations." The old globe died in 1914. They knew that and wanted to make a fresh one. They did and we are living with the e fascinating thing was although the Vienna circle converted much of the intellectual globe to logical positivism (reality is only what can be positively shown) Godel, even though a member, made a proof that they were wrong! Goldstein believes Godel's desire to disprove positivism led him to prove the 'incompleteness' of early explains that the usual meaning of Godel's work is to justify relativism, which is not how Godel understood his work. Godel deeply believed his work demonstrated that the human mind can discern deeper mathematical truth than any formal system of mathematics can find. In other words, he proved -mathematically- that it is not possible for any computer program to search all the mathematical truths that are available to the human mind!Where does that capacity come from? How can the human mind connect to the hidden, difficult, profound and awesome mathematical concepts that continue to match the physical world? How does the insight or 'intuition' of mathematical concepts enter the mind of the mathematician?This is the theme of the book as Goldstein presents the isolation of Godel because of his rejection of positivism. She also connects his friendship with Einstein due to Einstein's same intellectual battle. His work is called the 'Theory of Relativity' and is used to justify a subjective world. Einstein disagreed. He believed the accurate name would be 'Theory of Invariance', totally the opposite! Two globe class thinkers, whose ideas were twisted to mean the contrary to what they believed. How sad. Both were isolated and globe so shows how Godel's devotion to logic gave him an uncommon courage to believe what his research found. For example, (page 60) she relates "I found those small Bible studies published by the Jehovah's witnesses. . .These contained careful underlinings and marginalia in the logicians hand." Another author mentions that Godel believed in the resurrection. He also was devoted to the writings of apter eleven starts with an perfect description of thee issue of certainty. What is "proof"? Reminds us of the well known point that all deductive reasoning (such as mathematics) must begin with unproven beliefs. We hope to use beliefs that are clear, easy and agreed by everyone (therefore do not need proof).(Page 123) "The resulting beliefs can feel intuitively obvious precisely because we are not prepared to face their true and suspect source in our own private situations and egos." Euclid used only five. These five were trusted for thousands of years and yielded unbelievable results. We now believe one of them (parallel postulate) is wrong!Godel's work shows that mathematics requires different direct beliefs, "intuitions", that cannot be "proved" by mathematics. This was and is a shocking, deeply disturbing conclusion to those who understand the significance. David Hilbert, the leader of mathematics at the time, was mad when he saw Godel's work. It destroyed his life's is book is an perfect introduction to Godel's work. I search it fascinating due to its result on the intellectual world. If, as with other globe changing ideas, (Copernicus, Newton, Einstein) it takes a century for them to be assimilated into the culture, we should be seeing an increased result soon. What the result will be is unknown. As Godel showed, deductive reason cannot learn all that the human mind can discern.
Reminds me of “Macbeth.” Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the latest syllable of recorded time, and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the method to dusty death. A book too psychological for my taste. Not one of Turow’s better efforts.
This was a very disappointing book. It is basically an advertisement for the author's university. He asserts effectiveness of his favorite approaches but provides essentially no evidence for his claims. Though the whole theme is the ability of future students to deal with AI, there is no evidence that he has examined what AI can and can not do, and which deficiencies are likely to go away in the future. While "experiential" learning (a fancy name for learning by doing) is a amazing idea, this book provides small data showing when it helps and when it doesn't -- in fact, this book doesn't provide much data on anything. Even the review of the history of the US university system is rather superficial. Read Derek Bok's "The Struggle to Reform Our Colleges" or Cathy Davidson's "The Fresh Education" if you actually wish to learn something about higher education in the 21s century.
Timely piece that recasts the university as the put whose mission is to provide future skilled workers with training at higher and more sophisticated levels. In the end it is about securing and sustaining jobs. There is no serious consideration given to ethical practices and citizenship. What is presented as "humanics." This is presented as the practical response to the contributions of the social sciences and the humanities. The tragedy is that Joseph Aoun my be on track in terms of the creation of a higher level vocational school that produces workers disguised as a university.
This is an perfect introduction to how logic and modern set theory affect modern mathematics. Delves into Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers. Also examines work of Kurt Godel, Emil Post , and Gerhard Gentzen. Not too technical. Very readable.
It's necessary to note that Dr. Alexander's experience (NDE ,although he was never clinically dead [no brain waves]) is entirely SUBJECTIVE, (private, personal) as are such experiences. He then goes on to promote a philosophy and theology for all humans.I am no stranger to the realm he speaks about. I have had a life changing encounter with a like realm. It's real that there is no language to express this reality accurately. We just use the tools we're ars ago after reading books by Moody, Ross etc on death and what happens afterward , including some Zen existentialist , Jung and Buddist literature i decided to look into the Fresh Testament.I read only a small of it and decided nobody else's experience mattered more than my own and that to create an informed decision about life death etc i required more.Long story (sorry) short this is what happened : I talked to a God I wasn't even sure exhisted. All of a sudden the form of a man that looked like glowing molten metal appeared right in front of me. Without words he conveyed to me (also) three things. He 'said' "I AM REAL. I AM JESUS. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD". Then he poured Himself into me. This was so unexpected that I exited the room as quick as I could. BTW, this took put with eyes opened and closed. It didn't matter. I was seeing and experiencing in the spiritual realm. I have never been the same. I am always aware of the reality that dwarfs this one and The Person of , a lot of of us have had varied subjective spiritual experiences. I part ways thought with Dr. Alexander's theology though. He says God's name is "om". Realy? That syllable that is chanted in yoga? I can't buy that.Where i really depart though is he says he was taught "you can do no wrong". By extension then no human can do wrong ultimately!? So Hitler, Stalin, and Jeffery Dahmer are all in bliss enjoying a food with their victoms?Look. There's nothing fresh here. There is the group that believes all humans are somewhere ,somehow intrinsically amazing and will go to become part of god when they pass. There's the group that doesn't believe anything. Then there is a group that believe man is intrinsically bent on things that are versus God and neighbor and practices such things a little/much, versus /with their own consent.I believe the latter has been my experience. BUT , I believe the One Real God (who's name isn't om) has provided the cure.I believe we do best to look to the one who has had the ADE/R. Actual death experience and RESURRECTION. (Differs from resuscitation, revivification.If one will place aside any anti-supernatural bias and any unforgiveness toward the people who say they know Jesus (please forgive us) and use only the methods historians use on secular data, all naturalistic explanations of the resurrection of Jesus fail to explain all that data. Overwhelmingly the most probable explanation is God raised Jesus from the is dovetails perfectly with my SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE and my OBJECTIVE (outside, public) knowledge and the past SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUALS AND 's interesting that modern man may even wish to believe in a God but not a devil who could deceive. Because both amazing and evil, both God and the Evil one do exist Dr. Alexander has unwittingly become an evangelist (he even says he ha amazing news) for a false God which puts him in league with the one Jesus says comes only to steal slay and destroy. How? If you're not gathering with Jesus he says you're scattering. If Jesus didn't lie when he said no-one comes to the Father but by me and he who does not honor the son does not honor the Fatherwho sent Him, who/what is teaching you to do an end around Jesus to obtain to a god?Just because something fits in my mouth doesn't mean I should eat it. Just because something is liquid doesn't mean I should drink it. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS SPIRITUAL DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD TAKE IT is man's theology is risky for the souls of men who are seeking but have yet to be apprehended by the truth and something to be stepped on by those of us who have.(For evidence of the resurrection of Jesus see: Habermas, Licona, Carson, Craig).Please add knowledge to any experience you have and if you have knowledge only you CAN experience Jesus in the ace be to you,Darrell
The author proved by writing this book that Gödel can be discussed and understood by normal people in plain English. This is not an simple task, but her explanations are beautifully formulated, and in combination with amazing storytelling she succeeds r me, the book was a jumping off point for a series of startling insights, after which the entire globe suddenly created more sense. Gödel's theorem has sweeping implications not only for mathematics but for philosophy, physics, theology, reductionism and materialism. After reading this book I bought a lot of more, not-nearly-as-accessible books on Gödel, randomness, Turing, incompleteness and different aspects of 's just not that often that a book opens a door that wide. A Princeton grad who knew the author recommended this and it's certainly one of the 10 most necessary books I've read in the latest 10 years.
I really wanted to like this book, but it was a chore to obtain through. I enjoyed Presumed Innocent, leapt ahead in the series to read Innocent, and tore into this book b/c I thought the hero of Sandy Stern was very en I read this book.........and nothing much happened. No true legal thrills. No action. No true one is a superhero in true life, but reading this was kind of like slogging through The Latest Jedi and seeing a character (Luke/Sandy) torn apart and shown in an unflattering manner. The Stern hero should have remained a secondary character, I fear. Forced myself to obtain to the final page, and, like after walking out of a Latest Jedi, have no desire to continue this series.
Since I am relatively fresh to Scott Turow, I continue to be amazed by his writing. The story has been well described by others. While it is a very interesting story, what create this book (and his other books as well) exceptional is the depth of emotions and the insights of individual characters about themselves and others. This puts Turow well above other authors on this genre. The Burden of Proof explores the vast range of feeling connected with Sandy Stern's dealing with the suicide of his wife, his family members and mates as well as the very complex and fascinating legal situation of his brother-in-law and how the rest of his family was involved. I found the book to keep my interest from beginning to end. Who knew when reading "Presumed Innocent" that Sandy Stern would be such an interesting character!
Perfect outline of what today's society needs the university to be. Perhaps Dr. Aoun will write a second book about the extraordinary leadership that can move a university from the entrenched 16h century model to an institution that is relevant to 21st century learning.
Whoa... I mean this is the kind of book that is so significant and intellect changing that you simply MUST read it, but.......and this is a huge but, read slowly, take your time, and absorb. Utterly mind stretching..........I LOVED IT! Will be reading this a lot of times......
[The other "MidWest Book Review" seems to miss the main point of the book and doesn't do justice to it.]This book is not original research, but is still a amazing book because it opened my eyes to some very necessary maths about logic that I've overlooked. As the title says, it's about truth and proof. It surprised me that the "strength" of proof systems is somehow similar to transfinite apter 1: Aleph_0 is the cardinality of the integers. 2^Aleph_0 is the cardinality of the continuum (ie, the true line). By Cantor's diagonal argument we know there is no 1-1 correspondence between the integers and the apter 2: Cantor's theory of infinite ordinals. We can count from 1,2,3,... to infinity, and BEYOND that, is the first transfinite ordinal, that Cantor denotes as omega. Then we can carry on counting with omega + 1, omega + 2, omega +3, ..., to omega * 2. This process goes on to omega * 3, omega * 4, ..., and to omega^2, omega^3, ..., omega^omega, omega^omega^omega, ..., and eventually to omega raised to omega an infinite number of times, but it still doesn't end. The next ordinal is epsilon_0, and these countable ordinals go "inconceivably far beyond" epsilon_0. This results in Aleph_1, the first UNCOUNTABLE ordinal, and it still doesn't end!The continuum hypothesis asks whether 2^Aleph_0 = Aleph_1. It is still unsolved, but Cohen believes that it is highly unlikely to be true. Godel proved that CH is consistent with standard Zermelo-Frankel set theory. Cohen (the inventor of "forcing") proved that it cannot be proved in l this is explained very clearly in the book; my summary is lousy. John Stillwell's writing style is very engaging, he knows the topic thoroughly and is able to explain every detail with exceptional apter 3: About Emil Post's efforts to find for a formulation of all formal systems. He saw that unprovability is a easy consequence of the diagonal argument; this predated Godel's incompleteness theorems, but he didn't publish because the Church-Turing thesis was not yet established at that time (so he wasn't sure if his normal form is universal; Later it turned out to be, of course, Turing-equivalent).Chapter 4: An introduction to logic and deduction, via Gentzen's sequent calculus. I mainly skimmed this chapter. Chop elimination is introduced apter 5: This chapter is very crucial. It starts with the Peano axioms for arithmetic (PA). We can assign a countable ordinal to each vertex of the proof tree. Thus, a proof system's "strength" can be measured by what kind of induction it allows. Gentzen 1943 proved that induction up to any ordinal less than epsilon_0 can be proved in PA. However, there exists "real" theorems whose proof lies beyond epsilon_0 induction. Some examples are given next...Chapter 6: "Natural Unprovable Theorems". Eg: the Paris-Harrington theorem in Ramsey theory and the Tao-Green theorem in number apter 7: About "Axioms of Infinity" that can be added to ZF so it can deal with infinities. [I haven't read this chapter yet, maybe later. Hope this review helps you so far!]
I had a NDE after a serious motorcycle accident when I was 33 years old - I'm now 70! The experience will always be with me! Our Creators name is LOVE!!! Sometimes when I tell my story, the reactions are amazing and sometimes people just think the brain is reacting to the death process! I only want I had the ability to express in words what took place, however, I now realize, that words can never express the LOVE that that I felt and the removal of all hate! Hate does not live in that realm, and can never live there! To feel totally immersed in LOVE, cannot be place into the languages of this globe - I've tried and failed. I will tell you this much - all religions fail - ALL. Our creator is so far beyond this nonsense that I can't even place it in words! All I know is that I will always LOVE my creator, OM, or what ever name you wish to use! I really stopped caring if people believed me or not, however, when they wish to know what I experienced - I'm always satisfied to tell them what happened to me - as best I can - with the limitations that language can express! What a amazing book! Thanks to you Doctor; now others may understand what I went through! Rather you are a believer or not, Religious or Attheist, Agnostic, or what ever you are, at the very least you will come away with questions, that will at least create you wonder!!! I actually feel blessed that my Creator had me go through this in my Life - as painful as it was! It really created me look at Life in a much various way! Sorry for going on and on, but, I really appreciated this book, especially from a neurosurgeon! All I know is; that to me it was no dream! This was so various that I know it will be with me until I return to my Creator. What an experience! I thought my life was over at age 33, however, he/she, Creator, OM, Love, Truth, has shown me what Life really is! I hope all, and I mean all search what I found! Maybe, just maybe, this globe or realm we live in would become a better place!
This was the most convincing book I came across while preparing for how to deal with my husbands quickly approaching death from the 2 to 3 weeks before his death he saw deceased family members: our daughter, his sister, his grandfather,and even one of our sweet dogs who had passed. This author helped to assure me that he was going to a amazing place...or was already there. 15 days before he died he told me he was "almost there" and then said he "felt really good". This so much comforted me because to look at him this didn't seem possible. This book created his statements more convincing.
I was reading this book at the airport and was just starting to obtain into it. I had read bits of it. Then I met a lady who had a been a preacher's wife. He had died a lot of years before and she was still unsure of where we go when we die. That was a sign. I gave her my book and told her I thought she'd probably search her respond there. I usually follow the signs if they are really obvious. This one was. I have already ready read a lot of near death experience books. I wanted to read this one because it had happened to a neurosurgeon. Now this is just my opinion but if God, the Universe, or whatever you believe in happens to place in your path for only an hour, someone who could benefit from this book, then it's notice must be clear.
I’ve always liked Rebecca Goldstein’s novels, which deal with the issues of finding romantic love for people working in the hard sciences -- math, physics, and philosophy. The truth is that it’s really hard for people to search romantic love in these fields, but Goldstein is at least a cheerleader for it. So, when I heard that Goldstein had written a non-fiction book about Godel, a historic thinker whose contributions I’ve long thought about, well, the book piqued my interest. Generally, I think that if a book of this nature gets you thinking about things, then it’s mainly successful. And mainly this book is. Goldstein’s descriptions of the Vienna Circle are beautiful fascinating, and her recollections and the recollections of her colleagues at Princeton and the Institute for Advanced Study about Godel are illuminating, too. Godel in all of this still comes out as beautiful much a cipher, being overshadowed by the stronger personalities of Einstein, Wittgenstein, Russell, even Oppenheimer. Apparently, that’s just the method he was, and maybe there isn’t all that much to say about him personally, but the author does do some digging. The author is very good, too, at using her philosophical training at putting everyone in philosophical boxes -- platonists, positivists, empiricists -- if you’re into that sort of thing, but where the book falls down is on the explanation of the proof itself. Granted, the author admits that her mathematical skills maybe were somewhat better when she was still in graduate school. Still, the simple items of the proof is the encoding of mathematical statements by prime number factorization and the general idea that the proof is premised on the liar’s paradox. However, she glosses over the more difficult and central elements of the proof as to how there is necessarily a propositional function that can decide whether a godel number of a statement has a property that makes the statement provable, and then the diagonalization lemma -- well, let’s just say she punts on that. This appears to me to be fairly problematic. If someone is continually gushing about how brilliant the proofs are, and what a major contribution the incompleteness proofs are to the history of human and mathematical thought, and yet really can’t explain precisely how the proof works, then it appears that maybe someone is just sucking up to the authorities that be. If the author doesn’t really understand it, then how a lot of experts in the globe really do, and how sure can we be that there isn’t some issue in it has to wonder how necessary the incompleteness proofs will still be a hundred or two hundred years from now. Goldstein appears to recount how both Russell and Hilbert resisted the conclusions of incompleteness, but Russell was overwhelmed by the force of personality of Wittgenstein, and Hilbert couldn’t always obtain his own program back on track by herding in the cats. If the heart of a logical proof is itself a paradox of logic, as the liar’s paradox is, then one has to wonder about its conclusions. This is a small like premising a proof of arithmetic on ‘zero divided by zero’, where you then might be able to prove almost anything. Russell sounds in the book that he wanted to limit this sort of issue by the theory of types, but perhaps there should just be some more general prohibition versus introducing paradoxes into mathematical proofs, and then to see where you can go from there. Godel is commonly compared to Escher, who built logically impossible buildings, which may be interesting, but perhaps it is more necessary to understand ways to build actual buildings -- or build proofs -- that architecturally won’t fall down in the true world. When I was growing up, all of the proofs in geometry class appeared to be beautiful straightforward -- you could generally follow the logic and understand why they had to be true. Perhaps there was always some over-preaching about ‘finding a neighborhood around a point’ or ‘taking the limit as a value goes to zero’, but you could usually understand what they were getting at. Yet these days everything is more complicated and less immediately verifiable: take the four color map theorem, which was evidently only ‘proved’ by a computer enumerating a vast number of unique configurations (even though earlier proofs from the nineteenth century looked beautiful good), and then Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Latest Theorem that is premised on the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture relating elliptical curves and modular forms. Maybe someday seventh graders will understand how elliptical curves relate to modular forms, but if everything is so complicated, then how do we really know what is en there’s the question of what it all means. Even if there is no proof, the idea it embodies still resonates. Goldstein appears to wish to limit the impact of Godel’s incompleteness theorems to just what it says about the theory of the arithmetic of natural numbers, and wants to reject the implications used by modernism, existentialism, and anti-intellectualism that makes everything relative to man and downplays the power of the rational. But she still wants to draw on her own philosophical training to bring in its relevance to the old academic debates on the theory of mind, and whether a computer can ever think the method a person does. Undoubtedly, Godel’s work has had implications, or at least established some benchmarks, that are relevant today to the fields of computer science, coding theory, and algorithmic complexity. But it appears to me to be fairly pointless to argue about whether computers will ever think like people, particularly as fresh varieties of neural networks continue to develop; these philosophical issues may support point the way, but they don’t really contribute to the technical solutions, where only time will tell, and machines may never be able to do everything exactly the method a human can, even if they are able eventually to pass a Turing Test. And I guess the author would disagree with me if I tried to draw implications from the incompleteness theorems to the more rigorous theories of physics, which she doesn’t consider, where incompleteness might be read to say that the entire movement to unify the laws of physics is pointless because each theory -- gravity, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism -- simply stands independently on its own, is incomplete, not necessarily consistent with the other theories, but simply co-existent. This issue may have originated with Einstein, pondering in his old age at what the author implies is the turkey farm of the Institute of Advanced Study, and how his unified field theory -- continued by others with theories of everything and spontaneous symmetry breaking -- is all leading us astray. Suppose we just draw the implication that the theories of physics don’t unify, that the universe just continues to diversify with more and more unrelated phenomena, that ‘all laws are local’, which is really all that is implied by incompleteness.
This book has two goals for the general reader, both of which it accomplishes beautifully. First, it attempts to explain the philosophical implications of Godel's proof and how it fits into the overall dispute between Platonists and empiricists. Second, it paints a lovely portrait of a genuis who triumphs but sadly ends his life in despair. As indicated in the headline, I could not understand the actual discussion of the two proofs, although I was able to obtain a amazing flavor for the methodology Godel used. Goldstein is a superior writer on these kinds of subjects, weaving deep knowledge, private experience and a wry sense of humor when needed.
The Book Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel by Rebecca Goldstein met my expectations. It describes the origin, motivation, process and reception of two of the most necessary results in mathematical logic of all time. It also debunks some of the myths made around it, specially the relativistic and postmodern interpretations of Godel's results. It is with amazing pleasure that I finally search a book readable by all that demystifies the spell of doom that some authors have been spreading about Godel's incompleteness results. Having actually studied myself the proofs while writing my thesis I was unable to comprehend the odd and even nonsensical interpretations that a lot of postmodern and relativistic authors still test to anchor to Godel's Incompleteness Proofs. Completely unwarranted conclusions such as: "Godel's results present that Reason alone is unable to give itself its own foundations" or "Godel proved that there is no objective reality outside the mind of the mathematician" have absolutely no foundation in any reasonable interpretation of Godel's proofs and are even repeated like a mantra by a lot of authors in various fields of philosophy (from Ethics to Epystemology). Godel himself was in fact a Realist and a Rationalist in Mathematics to the end of his life and his results proof exactly the opposite of what those utterances test to show. Actually one of Godel's implications is that there is an Objective Realm of Mathematical Truths, which the human mind can grasp with informal proofs but may not be reduced to formal finitary recursive methods that by themselves respond all possible questions within mathematics. This is necessary because it shows that Reality cannot be reduced to what can be proved within a formal system. In particular, the reality of numbers (or the "Ideality" of numbers, using Frege's and Husserl's Platonist language) is not a fiction of mathematical language, nor a Logical Hocus Pocus (as Wittgenstein once said because he could not bear the results to his "language as a game" view of the world), but an established fact that goes beyond language, and that is what Godel actually proved.
I have not read any of Mr. Turow's fiction but did see the film "Presumed Innocent" a screenplay of his book by the same name. There are as a lot of plot twists as in a Christie or Doyle book. But, with Turow we obtain a amazing deal more hero development. It was a joy to read to see more elucidation of one of the main characters in "Presumed Innocent". The mechaniations of Sandy Stern and his relationships with his family and all the linkages was entertaining and riveting. I will read more.