I cant figure out exactly why, probably aging or marriage, off late I am unable to hold on to reading fiction. I used to enjoy reading simple fiction from the likes of Sidney Sheldon, Jeffery Archer, Robin Cook etc. The complicated ones (Booker/Pulitzer's winners or classics from Dickens or Austin) have always tested my patience [and I always failed]. I have been trying to read 'Crisis - Robin Cook', from past 3 months. Couldn't move beyond the 2nd chapter. The only notable exceptions were Harry Potter series and 'Eragon & Eldest' , which are more of fantasy than fiction. I thoroughly enjoyed both of them.
'Science-for-Dummies' is what interests me now-a-days. My last 3 reads fall into this category.
The first one 'The Fabric of Cosmos', by Brian Greene is a brilliant book on physics. In this books, he tries to explain space, time and the theories behind their origin. I never understood relativity much - even during my graduation in physics -, but this books explains it in such a simple language, you will be forgiven if after reading, you believe you understood it. String theory was new to me. The examples he takes to explain various String theories are fascinating. My imagination failed me a lot of times in trying to visualize what is said. But, such are quantum and string theories.
'If you think you understand quantum theory, you do not understand quantum theory- Richard Feyman'.
The second one 'The Ancestor's Tale', by Richard Dawkins is a very interesting book on the origin of our species. This was the first time I read anything on biology [after my 10th std]. And, the book was captivating from the word go. He starts with our species and goes back in time tracing common ancestors with Chimps, Gorillas, Baboons and other species till the origin of life. Each chapter traces back a few million years to tell about an ancestor of us and in doing so, he throws in some interesting tales on various topics. In one topic, he explains logarithmic tables. Believe me, I didn't understand what logarithms were in all my school and college days. If only I knew this part during those times, I would have done so well in some of my maths. Sometimes it feels that my education was very inefficient in terms of money, effort and time. Probably, I would have done better had I tried to know things rather than learn them.
Dont miss his other book 'The God Delusion'.
The third one 'Genome', by Matt Ridley is a wonderful book. Wonderful, in its true sense, that each chapter fills you wonder. This is about the 23 chromosomes in a human body. Since the chromosome is too huge for a book and too complicated for a lay man, he gives a brief of 1 or 2 genes on each of the 23 chromosomes, and in doing so he explains so much about our life, health, diseases, intelligence, sex and what not. I am currently reading penultimate chapter, and am worried that the book is getting over too soon. Wish we had more chromosomes, so that he had more to write.
The common feature of all these 3 books, is the enthusiasm that these generate. After the first one, I thought I should have been an physicist, after the second, a Evolutionist and after the third, a Geneticist. I know,I cant be any of the above, but I thank each of the above authors for so graciously sharing such wonderful knowledge.
19 February 2008
22 November 2006
A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
After a long time, I managed to spend some quality time on books. I picked this one in Walden, opp.KBR Park. I half expected it to be very much like 'A Brief History of Time', by Stephen Hawkings, which in itself is a fantastic book.
The book opens with a receipe to create an Universe. I thought it would follow the trail of 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan. But this book did beat my expectations. This is not a science-for-dummies kind of book.
It touches on various aspects of science, Astro-physics, Quantum Physics, Geology, Paleantology, Genetics, Biology, Evolution etc., but doesn't explain any science in it. Rather, it goes thru the history of each of these areas and narrates how science developed to its existing state. It starts with the myths before sceience arrived, explains how scientists concluded on theories, where they missed the facts, and how they managed to sort out their differences of opinion etc.
Though some topics last a little longer than interesting, it is a good first time read. And, probably you could go thru the pages at leisure again and again.
The book opens with a receipe to create an Universe. I thought it would follow the trail of 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan. But this book did beat my expectations. This is not a science-for-dummies kind of book.
It touches on various aspects of science, Astro-physics, Quantum Physics, Geology, Paleantology, Genetics, Biology, Evolution etc., but doesn't explain any science in it. Rather, it goes thru the history of each of these areas and narrates how science developed to its existing state. It starts with the myths before sceience arrived, explains how scientists concluded on theories, where they missed the facts, and how they managed to sort out their differences of opinion etc.
Though some topics last a little longer than interesting, it is a good first time read. And, probably you could go thru the pages at leisure again and again.
15 November 2006
God - To believe in or not to ?
I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Do you Believe in God ? - I think, this eternal question has 2 important words 'Believe' and 'God', which unless explained would not give a meaningful answer.
'Belief' is the key word in the question. I dont really understand the other. When I was kid, I believed in ghosts, tooth fairies, simple maths like 1+1=2 and many other things. At that time, I didn't understand the statement 1+1=2. If my teacher or parents said that, then it had to be true. I wouldn't have dared to question on ghosts or maths. It is easier to believe in them. Belief doesn't require proof. No one ever proved to me that 1+1=2 or that ghosts exist. Belief totally depends on the person who propogates the idea, not the idea itself. What you believe in depends completely on Who said it, unless you think about it and have enough information to get to a rational conclusion.
If a hooligan in my neighbourhood claimed that a Super Massive Blackhole exists in the centre of Milky way. Would I believe it? I would probably think he has some ulterior motives behind his claim. Afterall, how much can a crook know about science. Super Massive Blackholes in Milkyway.. Crazy idea in a crazy brain..bullshit..
But if my physics professor claimed that Blackholes do not exist and have never been proved, I wouldn't think twice before believing it. Ofcourse Physics is my professor's cup of tea. And he has no benefit of misleading me.
That was a hypothetical situation. In fact a Super Massive Backhole was detected, very recently, right at the centre of Milky Way. The point is I do not have the information on everything. I have no clue on when earth was created. When a geologist says 4.6 billion years, I really can't aruge. So, be it. He could have said 400 billion and I still wouldn't argue. I believe in lot of things based on who says it. The truth value of each of things I believe in are debatable. They might be true or absolute trash. I cannot tell the difference until proved.
'God', on the other hand, is the most relative concept of all time. Every person gives a different definition of who He/She is. There are probably as many defintions of God as people on earth. Who's definition should I believe in? Two commonly agreeable properties of God are:
Omnipresent -> but somehow He chooses to be invisible.
Omnipotent -> but somehow He chooses not to give any rational proof of his power.
None of the people I know has ever claimed to see or feel God or his power. So basically I do not have a proof that He exists. I also do not have a proof that He doesn't.
My take is I would believe in any God, if defined without any paradoxes. Most of the Gods I read about are jealous, power-hungry, vindictive, childish, silly, negotiable, easily-impressable dictators. They get offended when you pray a different God or if you dont pray at all. God indulges in You-do-this-for-me-I-do-that-for-you kind of silly stuff. I really dont understand why God needs us at all. It is us who should need God. If I were God, I really wouldn't care so much about humans.
I find no definition of God which meets my expectation and no person qualified to make me believe.
Do you Believe in God ? - I think, this eternal question has 2 important words 'Believe' and 'God', which unless explained would not give a meaningful answer.
'Belief' is the key word in the question. I dont really understand the other. When I was kid, I believed in ghosts, tooth fairies, simple maths like 1+1=2 and many other things. At that time, I didn't understand the statement 1+1=2. If my teacher or parents said that, then it had to be true. I wouldn't have dared to question on ghosts or maths. It is easier to believe in them. Belief doesn't require proof. No one ever proved to me that 1+1=2 or that ghosts exist. Belief totally depends on the person who propogates the idea, not the idea itself. What you believe in depends completely on Who said it, unless you think about it and have enough information to get to a rational conclusion.
If a hooligan in my neighbourhood claimed that a Super Massive Blackhole exists in the centre of Milky way. Would I believe it? I would probably think he has some ulterior motives behind his claim. Afterall, how much can a crook know about science. Super Massive Blackholes in Milkyway.. Crazy idea in a crazy brain..bullshit..
But if my physics professor claimed that Blackholes do not exist and have never been proved, I wouldn't think twice before believing it. Ofcourse Physics is my professor's cup of tea. And he has no benefit of misleading me.
That was a hypothetical situation. In fact a Super Massive Backhole was detected, very recently, right at the centre of Milky Way. The point is I do not have the information on everything. I have no clue on when earth was created. When a geologist says 4.6 billion years, I really can't aruge. So, be it. He could have said 400 billion and I still wouldn't argue. I believe in lot of things based on who says it. The truth value of each of things I believe in are debatable. They might be true or absolute trash. I cannot tell the difference until proved.
'God', on the other hand, is the most relative concept of all time. Every person gives a different definition of who He/She is. There are probably as many defintions of God as people on earth. Who's definition should I believe in? Two commonly agreeable properties of God are:
Omnipresent -> but somehow He chooses to be invisible.
Omnipotent -> but somehow He chooses not to give any rational proof of his power.
None of the people I know has ever claimed to see or feel God or his power. So basically I do not have a proof that He exists. I also do not have a proof that He doesn't.
My take is I would believe in any God, if defined without any paradoxes. Most of the Gods I read about are jealous, power-hungry, vindictive, childish, silly, negotiable, easily-impressable dictators. They get offended when you pray a different God or if you dont pray at all. God indulges in You-do-this-for-me-I-do-that-for-you kind of silly stuff. I really dont understand why God needs us at all. It is us who should need God. If I were God, I really wouldn't care so much about humans.
I find no definition of God which meets my expectation and no person qualified to make me believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)