A Tear at the Edge of Creation

Some minor/subjective comments sent to the author on Aug. 19, 2010 :
 

  
Dear  MG,
 
I finished reading "A tear at the edge of creation" > 1 week ago.   I don’t have any profound or sophisticated comments to give … But since you seem to be quite tolerant of people’s comments, I’d just drop you a couple subjective and naïve paragraphs.
 
I didn’t know you at all before reading this one.  I was attracted to read it mainly because I got the impression (from the book jackets) that you sort of equalize the Theory of Everything as a monotheistic religion which seemed to be a cute/new argument. I obviously like this "theme" and therefore have decided to read it.   The book wasn’t exactly what I expected which may not be necessarily a bad thing.  I thought you were a physicist and I’ve been surprised that you are now also doing modelling related to the origin of life … astrobiology.  Not sure who else has changed from a superstring physicist to astrobiologist !  Which I of course admire.
 
All in all, I guess, your book doesn’t really logically (something like A>B and B>C => A>C) show us that the Theory of Everything is impossible but you’ve provided a lot of examples/historical background to support what you say.  I more or less agree with what you have said in general.  I also enjoy your humor like comparing Richard Dawkins et. al. with the likes of militant extremists …
 
Somehow, the end of the book becomes a bit unexpected that you tell us to cherish our Earth and you suddenly become a conventional environmentalist after all the 250+ pages.  For my sub-conscious, naïve but immediate feeling, you seem to climb down from the lofty academic discussion to a mundane level in the last chapter.  It’s a little bit strange to me but maybe just me ….
 
Our planet or our corner of the Universe being an accidental product or not doesn’t necessarily compel one to cherish the rareness.  It’s only an option that one can make for oneself.  To me, it’s OK that everything is completely meaningless …
 
2 trivial comments from a naïve reader:
 
(1) In your Endnotes, you’d often give the exact publication details.  Nevertheless, quite a few/many times in the book, you refer the reader to your bibliography (list) at the end of your book.  The bibliography has so many books and the reader may not really know which one you’re referring them to for that particular subject unless one studies all the bibliography very carefully.  I prefer very much the way that you refer the readers to in the "Endnotes".
 
(2) Also, sometimes, you wrote  in the book that we have already discussed this or that in Part 1 etc.   I think it’d be nice if you can refer the readers to the exact page (or pages).
  
 
Kin
 
 
Advertisements

About kinyip

An experimental particle physicist ...
This entry was posted in Books. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s