You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Douglas_Knight comments on Open Thread, Apr. 27 - May 3, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 27 April 2015 12:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (352)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: iarwain1 29 April 2015 11:31:16PM 4 points [-]

I'm looking for a book, or a combination of up to 5 books, that fulfills the following requirements:

  • At least a pretty good coverage of the all the major subjects in modern fundamental physics & cosmology (at least those that can be covered without going too deep into the math)
  • An emphasis on the philosophical implications and interpretations of the different leading theories. So it should cover all the major different interpretations of quantum mechanics, the meaning of space and time, the philosophical implications of multiple universes, etc.
  • Gives solid coverage to the major competing alternatives rather than just promoting a single controversial view. (Alternatively, I could try a combination of different books where each promotes a single view, but between them they cover all the major views.)
  • Very low math requirements: if there's anything more than high school math then that math needs to be extremely well explained and probably very dumbed-down.
  • Very clear and well-written.
  • As up to date as possible, although this is a bit less important than the other requirements.

Textbooks are fine, as long as they meet all those requirements.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 30 April 2015 12:55:36AM *  3 points [-]

Are your requirements sorted by order of importance?

Quantum Computing Since Democritus might be a good choice. If I think of the first item as the goal and the others qualifications, it is a poor choice, but if I rearrange them, maybe a good choice.

Comment author: iarwain1 30 April 2015 01:19:17AM 1 point [-]

I didn't originally intend them to be in order, but they actually are. The only exception is that the very low math part is very important and should go at the top.