Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits

by John D. Barrow

Book Overview

In Impossibility, John D. Barrow--one of our most elegant and accomplished science writers--argues convincingly that there are limits to human discovery, that there are things that are ultimately unknowable, undoable, or unreachable. Barrow first examines the limits of the human mind: our brain evolved to meet the demands of our immediate environment, and much that lies outside this small circle may also lie outside our understanding. He investigates...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0195130820
• ISBN13: 9780195130829
• Release Date: October 1999
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
• Length: 304 Pages
• Weight: 0.60 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 5.5" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

The impossible dream...

"I believe that knowledge is fractal. Whatever we learn -- what remains however small it seems -- is infinitely complex." Isaac Asimov, from his autobiography "I Asimov" In 1896, the US Patent Office seriously considered closing down on the theory that everything that was to be discovered had already been discovered. One need not look merely at the past one hundred or so years to see that there is no danger that plans to close the patent office will not soon be resurrected. In this book, Oxford University's John Barrow considers the inherent limits of knowability...an endeavor particularly germaine in the wake of Heisenberg's uncertainty, Einstein's relativity and of course Godel's incompleteness theorem...a subject DEFINATELY separate and apart from the closure of the US Patent Office because the whereas the closure of the US Patent Office would denote a completion of discovery, considerations of impossibility denote the limits of knowledge itself. Significantly, Barrow recognizes and addresses three key areas wherein a "the science limits and the limits of science" play a role: 1) Observer bias: In other words, the inherent limits of the human ability to percieve. In this regard, our partial view of the spectrum of visible light, auditory sound, and experiential feeling are but three examples; 2) The limits of technology: In other words, the inherent limits of the tools we use to devine truth. Our microscopes only view so microscopically. Our technologies only piece reality so deeply. 3) The limits of knowability itself: In this regard, Heisenberg's uncertainty priniciple that we cannot know both a subatomic particles speed and location is an easy example. However for Barrow, Godel's incompleteness theorem is a harder example. According to Barrow while its true that Godel's theorem says that any system sufficiently complicated to involve Godelian arithematic would suffer the production of formally unprovable propositions, for Barrow it is not a given that an ultimate theory of everything as denoted by modern physics would constitute such a "theory of everthing." As he puts it, even Euclidian geomotry would not constitute such a system. Barrow's understandable conservatism aside, it seems unlikely to be gainsaid that modern string theory -- consisting of anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions -- let alone Einsteinian relativism would constitute such a system. In other words, while covering the main points, perhaps Barrow is a tad to conservative in hedging his bets that ultimate truth -- as would posited by a theory of everything -- is unknowable. In his closing chapters, Barrow addresses impossibility in relation to free will. If complete knowledge is unknowable then certainly such unknowability impacts free will. Perhaps Barrow himself or others will return to write on this important topic and when they do perhaps they will find that free will observes the same parementers outlined by choas theory...that the disorder yi

Rich in interesting ideas Understanding through understanding what we cannot understand

I read a text like this with the understanding that I am not going to understand everything in it. I read a text like this also with the understanding that I will probably at certain points disagree with it. But I first and above all read a text like this to extend my own thought, to learn new ideas, to go beyond the understanding I have previously had of the subject. The subject of ' impossibility' has been with me since I was a small child. I have always tried to understand how God could understand and know everything, when 'everything' seemed to me to be often so tremendously small and trivial, as if for instance the size and weight as they are changing of every particule of dirt and dust. The famous paradoxes of ' impossibility' relating to God are analyzed by Barrow in this book , the question of whether God can create a stone too heavy for God to lift - The answers which would seem to make God's existence and omniscence incompatible, it seems to me can always be trumped by the idea that our logic and our thought may simply not comprehend a 'dimension' of being , which is God's alone. In any case Barrow studies the idea of impossibility here in a variety of different contexts. In one he wants to show how crucial it is to the development of scientific inquiry and the establishing of laws of Nature. In all of this work I find Barrow's tone and intelligence admirable. He shows a great deal of modesty despite his great grasp of very complicated subjects. I will just cite one sample of this from his concluding chapter. "All the great questions about the nature of the Universe- from its beginning to its end- turn out to be unanswerable. There is a fundamental divide between the part of the Universe that we can observe, and the entire, possibly, infinite whole. There is a visusal horizon beyoned which we cannot see or know. Again there is a positive side to this limitation. If it did not exist, then nor would we: every movement of every star and galaxy would be felt here and now." His fundamental idea is in a sense that our limitations in knowledge add to our world and being. As he concludes, "Ultimately, we may even find that the fractal edge of our knowledge of the Universe defines its character more precisely than its contents, that what cannot be known is more revealing than what can" This is wonderfully rich work of thought, and most highly recommended to all who would better understand our world, through understanding what we cannot understand about it .

A torturous text on paradoxes of knowing what is unknowable

Is science fast coming to an end? Can we arrive at a so-called theory of everything? Are there limits to our abilities to discover the nature of reality?In trying to tackle such questions, Astronomer John D. Barrow invites readers to an intriguing journey which I understood as twofold. First, it promises to show how the notion of impossibility is far subtler than everyday language suggests and to demonstrate how fundamental are the limitations to science (in the broadest sense of human capability to discover and know things). To support this contention, he serves up a menu of what seems like disjointed readings into the limits of human endeavor as demonstrated in findings in different fields such as astronomy, mathematics, psychology, economics, and others. Each of these readings, which are sub-sections of chapters, is individually interesting and the book overall is not deeply technical, -- and thus remains accessible to the truly curious generalist reader. It covers some familiar basic ideas in different fields, which all depict the notions of limits and impossibility, whether in scientific discovery or in social decision-making. The topics range from the technical bounds to scientific experiments, such the speed of light and difficulties of producing the extremely high temperatures not found on earth which are needed to test our version of the forces of nature, to Arrow's impossibility theorem on the inability to generate a consistent ranking of social preferences based on an aggregation of ranking of individual preferences. Unfortunately, these sub-sections of chapters, while individually very interesting and clearly written, tend to conflate different ideas of impossibility rather than leading to a straightforward conclusion on the fundamental limitations of human endeavors of creation and discovery. The secondary thrust of the book is on the nature of reality itself. Barrow argues that the kind of limitations he enumerates defines the universe more powerfully than a list of what we think is possible. In fact, he contends that this ?impossible? nature of the universe is what itself allows the self-reflection consciousness of humans, a rather intriguing, if not entirely novel, proposition. My judgment on this book is a complex as the range of subjects the author attempts to cover. It is without doubt an intriguing set of propositions loosely connected with some related discussion on the history of scientific thought. I found the discussion of nineteenth century notions of impossibility very informative. However, the book may achieve its appeal by overstating its case (QUOTE the astronomers? desire to understand the structure of the universe is doomed merely to scratch the surface of the cosmological problem UNQUOTE) and resorting to fast and loose comparisons of paradoxes and limits which are well-known to practitioners in a number of different fields. Ultimately, the book gives a sense of having covered too much, and thus providing too litt

Misson Impossible

Recurring fascination with the question: whether or not the ever-expanding frontiers of science are subject to limits, led me to the study of John Barrow's 'Impossibility'. Barrow asserts that there are definite limits to the development of science due to philosophical, sociological, biological, technological, mathematical and logical factors as well as Laws of Physics, like finite speed of light, cosmic singularity theorems, inflationary cosmology, relative time travel; and 'Anthropic Cosmology', which states that there must be physical constants (viz. the mass of the proton) to allow for the existnece and emergence of living creatures; and Godel's theorem, which has been used to argue that a computer may never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge base is limited by a fixed set of algorithms, whereas a person may discover unexpected truths. Without minimising the great merit in Barrow's approach, I feel that finding limits to scientific development is like learning to swim: no matter how much the instructor tells you before hand, you only learn after you have stepped into the water. While it is useful and desirable to have an idea of the limits which may beset scientific inquiry, it is imperative that scientists, at any given time, pursue research on the premise that further progress in science is always achievable.

Fascinating, insightful, worth the effort.

This book is worth reading for the quotations alone. The text is slower reading and the middle is a bit of a muddle, but very deep insights are scattered throughout. No fluff, good science, careful effort of a fine mind. Paradox is the source of existence, and impossibility is the source of meaning. The recognition of limits is a powerful new tool, not the "end of science". It allows us to transcend the spacetime metric and understand ultimate reality without the superstitious nonsense. That's my interpretation, and it's very true. The author may have meant something else, of course.