[Robert]

I really love this book and hope others do as well. It was recommended to me by one of our community members and it's living up to his high regards. I'm a little over half way done, but thought it would be a good fit for our community. Please start your book comments in a new thread and post any meta comments (inside joke; you need to read the book to get it) to this thread.

[Marketa]

I think that this book is so good because it gives you a lot of context even if the basic idea is very simple. In my opinion TOE must be a simple principle in a lot of context, which could further grow - the principle would be the core of the theory and will be simple basic explanation of everything, but the context would grow endlessly.

[harmonygirl]

I read the first part of it very long ago (I didn't get past the Mu) but it was fascinating. I will pick it up again, so that I can actually comment (in an non-meta way)

[Guille]

Can someone make a brief explanation of what's in the book, from start to end (spoilers included if any)?

[harmonygirl]

Here's the address for a pretty good synopsis on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...Escher%2C_Bach

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Here's the address for a pretty good synopsis on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...Escher%2C_Bach

Thanks for the link. I think I will start reading the book when I finish a few books (I continuouslly read 7 or 8 books and when iit starts going down I always feel empty and add books to the list).

What is the main idea that relates G, E and B? (apart from the fact that they are all german)

[harmonygirl]

I just picked this up today and as it was 20 years ago that I started it, I am going to have to start from the beginning again. What I vaguely recall is that the main idea is mathematical application and philosophy contained in it. Some random chapter Titles: consistency, completeness and geometry; The location of meaning; meaning and form in mathematics; minds and thoughts. The line at the bottom of the cover says "A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll" I think it would be an interesting starting point for discussion.

[TinyTree]

I loved "Godel, Escher, Bach", and I would say I could not have come up with my theory of everything (which is, if you have forgotten, that there is a probability to the universe which describes the manifestation of form) without it (and a number of other books which used dialectic). In fact, when I started writing my book on the theory of everything, I modelled it after "Godel, Escher, Bach" and divided the chapters between dialectic and exposition, which I think is an excellent technique.

If I were to propose a suggestion to this site, it would be to have a section for dialectic. Let me give you an example of what it is (like Godel, Escher, Bach).. it is a set of characters discussing something, where the author directs the conversation to elucidate finer points of comprehension, as:

Bob: What are we doing here, in the middle of a note on a forum?

DS: I don't know- don't knock it, we don't really exist outside of this context.

Bob: I much prefer our normal adventures- besides, I think we do exist outside of this context.

DS: In what way? We are fictional characters, are we not?

Bob: Yes, but we live in the minds of whoever reads us, and whoever happens upon this note will give us reality.

DS: Do you think the same is true of the external world- that it needs to be "read" to exist?

Bob: Who would be the reader? Would that be "God"? Is that really what "God" means- is the reader who provides existence?

DS: I was thinking of something more mundane, like a conscious observer.

Bob: So you are saying that people who are kind of dumb, and do not consciously perceive, do not truly exist?

DS: Not at all Bob, I am saying merely that you, perhaps, do not exist, without a reader.

[Guille]

TinyTree,

I've already said in other posts that the two philosophers I hate (and admire) the most are Hegel and Nietzsche, for they are the two philosophers that have achieved a better circle of thought, that is, the harder ones from which to escape.

Nietzsche's work was an improvement of Kant's critique, and joint with Bergson's work, are a good fight to the opposite site: Marx's work was an improvement of Hegel's dialectic, and joint with Sartre's work, are a good defence to the other side.

The dialectics to which you refer to in GEB, is it between these three genius, or is it an idea frm these, compared to another idea?

I'm going to write an article entitled "Hegel and Nietzsche" which I believe will create a lot of discussion going on.

[TinyTree]

The dialectics in the book are between imaginary characters (the Tortoise, Achilles, and some others if I recall)

G.E.B. is well worth reading. The notion of provable axioms outside the framework of an axiomatic theory is crucial to my theory of everything with regards to the probability of formal systems, which I have never had time to write an article about, but hope to.