The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World Paperback – May 29, 2012

I have no science background (except college biology) and my own reading, so my understanding of The Beginning of Infinity is somewhat limited (particularly the chapter on the multiverse). But even with that limitation, I found this to be one of the best books I've read in years in terms of developing and pushing my own understanding of the world. I reread two chapters just to try to get some inkling of their meaning (the multiverse and the jump to universality). I also read the infinity chapter twice and on the second reading I finally got the point of the infinite hotel (or at least one point). Even after two reads though, with those chapters I still felt lost. I really need to reread them all, but this is my review with just one reading.Despite my ignorance, I still felt it worthwhile to write a review to encourage others who might think that this book is not for them to tackle it. It is worth the effort to comprehend even for those who are not versed in the sciences.This is what I understood from the book. Deutsch argues that we are at the "beginning" of the creation of good explanations about our world (the infinity of the title is the endless knowledge that humans have the potential to create). We will always be at the beginning (such is the nature of infinity I think--at least that's what the infinite hotel suggested), and this leads to optimism about our world. Our world is filled with (overflowing with might be a better way to think of it because we don't even really know where the world ends)problems and potential solutions. Through conjecture and criticism, humans "solve" many of these problems and this leads to new problems (solutions are not truths but they are the best explanations for the problem after much testing--and stand as objective truths, I think).D systematically builds his case, looking at other science approaches like empiricism or instrumentalism and shows why these are not good explanations. This is not an attack on alternative perspectives as much as it is the building of good explanations around the topics that are discussed (which range from beauty (D argues that beauty is objective), philosophy, psychology, elections, choices, creation and physics). There seems to be rhetorical room for disagreement, meaning that D posits his position, criticizes the other positions and then argues that his position currently stands up to available criticism. Again, the criticism isn't an attack though; it's how knowledge is created. D's conjecture and refutation approach (to use Popper's terms) seems to make so much more sense then the usual way arguments are presented: here is a claim, here is why you should believe my claim, because I have lots of support for my claim you, the reader, should agree I'm right. Even if you have 500 pages of support for your claim, one piece of criticism could refute it.What I found most beneficial to me was the emphasis on optimism. Humans are great creators, testers and explainers. That's exciting. I still don't understand how to apply the theories and truths discussed here to human behavior, however. Deutsch does mention psychology and its bad theories, but I'm not really talking about that. I'm wondering if humans can achieve all possibilities that do not defy the laws of physics,and does this mean things like balancing the budget? Or agreeing on good laws? How does the human ability to develop good explanations work in these instances? Deutsch (referencing Popper, who he references a lot)states that reforming politics is more a matter of setting up laws that allow us to get rid of bad rulers and bad laws (as opposed to trying to somehow fix the system to make sure only "good" politicians got elected, or good laws passed). Is the assumption that if those laws were in place than politicians would develop/accept good explanations for fear of being got rid of (or would we just end up overturning things over and over again? Now I'm prophesying which D condemns; what could we predict about human behavior? that is really the question . . . ). Do the principles raised in this book work with human behavior just as they do with physical and technical problems?Deutsch starts with some fundamental principles (lots more than the ones I'm listing but these are what stood out to me and that I remember):1. there is no authoritative way to knowledge2. Humans are unique; what makes us unique is our ability to criticize our ideas and to generate new ones3. The best knowledge for anything is a good explanation (we ask, is this the best explanation?). Good explanations are the ones that withstand heavy and sustained criticism4. All observation is theory driven5. evolution favors the genes that can spread through the population6. morality, beauty, abstract concepts exist objectively (through good explanations)7. the laws of physics determine mathematical principles8. The universe is not random; but determined by the laws of physics.9. prophecy is bad explanation; prediction from good explanation is better10. Humans are creative but we have to be open to our creativity in order to feed it (the enlightenment was the first large scale example of this). We have to recognize that problems exist, that people can solve them and that this is the best plan for humans.When I finished I had lots of questions. I don't really get the concept of "fine tuning", and I don't understand the multiverse at all. I understand what the words say, but I can't get my head around the idea of these multiple planes and people all existing simultaneously and then when he starts talking about the photons hitting the plate and going off I get really lost.Not sure I get the anthropic principle. I did go do more reading on it and what I understood it to mean was that human existence (that humans are here) puts limits on the explanations for our existence. I think D disagrees with this.A final wondering. . . Deutsch doesn't really address emotions. Emotions, particularly fear, seem to power much human behavior (and certainly the stagnancy he discusses that kept us from moving forward with our creativity). In the rational world offered by this book, how do people "deal with" emotional resistance? Perhaps Deutsch would say that question isn't really relevant. There are good explanations for why emotion overpowers reason (I think they are good, but maybe they aren't--such as the part of our brains that powers emotions is much more powerful than that which powers reason), but such explanations do not help us to overcome this problem.

In a day and age when fear appears to be a primary commodity our politicians, media and economists try to sell us, we forget the progress we have made in the last few centuries. In the sixteenth century, Galileo demonstrated that it was possible for everything on earth to be moving through space at breakneck speed while appearing to us to be at rest. In the seventeenth century Newton put forth theories of planetary motion and with Leibniz invented calculus. In the 18th century, the foundations of modern chemistry and geology were established. In the nineteenth century, the telegraph was invented marking the first time the message could outdistance the messenger; Darwin put forth his theory of evolution establishing modern biology; the world of microbes was unlocked (with all the advances in medicine that event enabled); electricity turned night into day in an unprecedented way. The twentieth century, well . . . it would take volumes to list the advances in the twentieth century most of which were not and possibly could not have been predicted at the beginning of the century because, as this book often points out, we cannot predict innovation. David Deutsch reminds us of these indisputable facts, and creates a vision of our future that is both optimistic and realistic. It is optimistic in the sense that our progress is infinite. It is realistic because he recognizes that we will always have problems, and, indeed, often (but not always) these problems will be a consequence of our solutions to older problems.There is only one way of thinking that is capable of making such progress and this is the way of seeking good explanations though creativity and criticism. The better an explanation, the more extensive is its range and the more difficult it is to construct an better, alternative explanation. Parochial theories (theories that may apply rules of thumb to local situations, but then often claim universality) always resist explanatory knowledge. Parochial knowledge seeks to be justified by one external authority or another. It has taken the form of a parent saying, "Because I said so" or a church leader saying, "Because God says so" in order to justify one belief or another. Cultural memes often provide the same sort of parochial explanations that resist knowledge that seeks good explanations.Good explanations are not limited to the sciences, and they are important because they have infinite reach. Deutsch describes this infinite reach and contrasts it with parochial theories in many ways throughout the book. One example -which he does not use- might be a brief contrast between the physics of Aristotle and Galileo. Aristotle's physics was based on rest. It was based on rest because he thought that the earth rested at the center of the cosmos. Objects fell (or were elevated) because of their weight (in Latin the word for weight is gravitas). The heavier the object was, the closer it was to the center of the cosmos. The lighter it was, the further away from the center its natural place was. There is more to Aristotle than this, but the point is that Aristotle's theory was parochial. It pertained only to the earth and it did not have infinite reach. Indeed, according to Aristotle, the celestial bodies were so light (actually they had no weight) that they were not made of the same material as that on the earth. As a consequence, celestial bodies were not subject to the same physical laws as bodies on earth. Galileo explained it differently. Following Copernicus, Galileo did not think the earth was the center. His physical theory was based on motion not rest. Accordingly, his theory applied to the planets and stars as well as the earth. Galileo was at the beginning of infinity. His speculations launched us on a path that could not have been predicted. Over the years his theory was subjected to a variety of criticisms and progress was made that exceeded even his wildest imagination. Good explanations, like Galileo's, always place us at the beginning of infinity, and The Beginning of Infinity is the title and theme of this remarkable book.Deutsch spends much valuable time discussing obstacles to knowledge based on good explanations such as bad philosophy, justifications based on authority, memes that impede good explanations, political systems that close debate, etc. In each case, he gives hope for the human enterprise so long as we have the will to stand at the beginning of infinity.

A solid read. Perhaps a bit too long and too smart, at least for me, but intriguing nonetheless. We do solve problems and in the process create knowledge, much like the universe itself the body knowledge is expanding and the creation is accelerating. So, it does look like the beginning of infinity. And yes, the author's favorite word does seem to be - parochial 🙂

Worth the read, recommend watching YouTube about the topics discussed along with the books to get a better understanding of