I do not come from a scientific background, and this is the first popular science book I read in the last 15 years, so it was definitely a challenge. I happened to come across this book in a book shop, and I fell in love with the premise. Naturally I was not able to understand everything Frank Wilczek wrote about, especially towards the end of the book, but did my best because I felt the book was worthwhile. I took copious notes and I learned a lot. For me this book was an adventure, and often the author's words moved me because his perspective of the physical world is so beautiful. I just feel sad I was not able to understand every single word in the book. I will probably try to read it again in the future. ( )

(Disclaimer: I received this book through Goodreads First Reads.)

While the "question" Wilczek explores in this book is a compelling one, its pull is somewhat diminished by the foregone nature of the book's conclusion: Wilczek himself declares that quantum theory is a "definite answer 'yes'" just 8 pages in. With the drama of the hunt somewhat deflated by this bizarre spoiler, Beautiful Question goes from the advertised quest to something more like a meditation on the remarkable ability of scientists, from Pythagoras to Einstein, to uncover layer after layer of stunning structure and complex design. And that journey, moving less towards beauty than into it, is a hypnotic and illuminating one -- more than once I found myself meaning to polish off a chapter only to look up more than an hour later having gotten through hundreds of years of scientific progress.

That said, as a contemplation the book does often fail to live up to its promise. The prose is efficient but far from stunning, and too often seems wrapped up in its own satisfaction with possessing what it presents as "the answer." Many sections are frustratingly vague; the book seems stuck somehow between popular science and a legitimate exploration of the issues, often bringing up advanced topics I had never heard of (such as the "Platonic" structures of many algae and viruses) but only skimming the surface of actual explanation. On the other hand, I'm sure that I would have been lost or irritated had Wilczek gone too crazy with details that didn't interest me, and there are a few times (such as his exploration of Pythagorean acoustics) where he strikes just the right balance of economy and depth -- just the amount needed to appreciate the genuine structure of a given phenomenon, without too badly taxing the attention of a less-interested reader.

Overall, the book is a beautiful mess -- replete with joy, excitement, and yes, beauty, even as it ultimately fails as a narrative or an argument. Probably read best not as a single piece, but rather as a source of extended meditations on great realizations from the first geometry to the wildest dreams of modern physicists. As an ode to the (often-underrated) ways in which science can be good for the soul, it succeeds; it may not convince you that the universe is beautiful for any reason, but it should at least remind you that, yes, it's probably worth looking around once in a while. ( )

(Original Review, 2015)

Just this morning my Chi Kung teacher at the Sheraton Hotel (I’m doing classes over there at lunch time), a Daoist (Taoist) monk, said virtually the same thing whilst quoting the Yi Jing (I Ching). In fact, the philosophy of movement underlying the entire system (often translated as Great Ultimate Fist) is based upon this principle. One might presume this aspect of human awareness reflects a primordial knowledge that precedes any particular culture's intellectual/philosophical continuum. Such primordial knowledge would inform and find expression in any sufficiently refined intellectual/philosophical cultural continuum. In fact, because this is so, this is where things get interesting. For example, I might speak of "the impossible contradiction of the infinite and the finite faced by Spinoza, theology and all previous idealist philosophies." And I might also say, "the integral components of a single unity within which the two opposites reside together in active unity and opposition, and hence in a logical contradiction."

“The sole reality is Being, Being is One, only the One is; the Many not." The issue is the nature or essence of "the One" and what epistemic event allows its nature to be misconstrued. If "the One" is an atemporal metaphor for self-awareness then what leads some to perceive "the Many" whilst others assert "only 'the One' is."? The answer, from an epistemological perspective, is 1/0. Prior to self-reflection and the reification of the perceived 1 is coalescent with 0. Hence, in the midst of self-reflection I find the 1, "the One," is subject to interpretation. Characterizations thereof are perforce unbounded. "The One" is simultaneously infinite and, in its singularity, finite. There is no other. The infinite cannot be achieved because it defines the singularity that is my essence. However, if I, in the midst of self-reflection, reify "the One" then each and every imagined phenomenon is thought to be a distinct entity which collectively may be described as "the Many." Such multiplicity is known to be an illusion by those who do not elect to reify "the One."

With the equation 1/0 in mind we must appreciate the consequence of the initial reification of "the One." No longer experienced as coalescent, in the midst of self-reflection we presume "the One" possesses substance or identity, but all we can know is the truly absolute: 0, or, might we say, emptiness. Truth is all we can know, there is no alternative. Therefore, no matter the nature of the inquiry into "the One," all we can know is emptiness, which manifests as "between." The reified "One" appears to possess two halves. Any conflict between the presumed two halves of "the One" is a faith-based illusion. Only those who reify "the One," the faithful, believe themselves to be apart from the infinite.

There is a famous Daoist description of the common progression of human awareness. The Dao (emptiness) gives birth to "the One." "The One" gives birth to the two (No longer appreciated as coalescent, the reified 1 is believed to be other than 0; 1 and 0 are understood to be 2.). The two gives birth to the three (The two halves and the "between" that separates them.). And the three gives birth to the ten thousand things (The inexorable ubiquity of "between" encountered during investigations of "the One.")

Finally, Daoism has advice for those who would reify any and all characterizations of "the One." "The way that can be spoken of is not the way." 1/0 (*my wife waving from the back of the room and saying: “You’re so full of shit!*)

Bottom-line: I once read a blog post somewhere in which some cruel individual unfairly disparaged Noether's theorem as a tautology. I dread to think what they'd have to say about this “everything is information” 'idea'. ;-) Wilczek’s approach to Noether is not the best, but it’s still pretty good. The best treatment on Noether’s theorem is still Weyl’s “Levels of Infinity: Selected Writings on Mathematics and Philosophy.” Also retracted 2 stars because Wilczek states Quantum Mechanics is the definite theory on reality. WTF?? ( )

Nobel physicist Wilczek's long "meditation" on the theme that the world embodies beautiful ideas. Nontechnically, but in Wilczek's usual idiosyncratic way, discusses Pythagoras, Plato, Newton, Maxwell, quantum mechanics, symmetry, and fundamental physics' "Core Theory" (Standard Model plus gravity and relativity). Dares to bet that the LHC will find supersymmetric particles. It's very good, but I think it would be better if it let us see at least a few of the relevant mathematical equations and dispensed with the numerous references to religiosity.

A Nobel Prize winning physicist explores the symmetry and beauty of the fundamental laws that govern our universe. ( )