Oldest game in the world. I just read this book, and quite enjoyed it. He wibbles on about how people used to be persecuted by the Church for saying things about God and the earth going round Uranus and what not. And then he says that some ancient bloke finally wrote his stuff in Italian rather than Latin, opening it up to the masses. And he says that many ancient blokes were wrong about physics and the universe. And he doesn’t even tell me if he thinks God exists, though I think he implies he doesn’t have a place in his theory. The thing that really narks me is that he uses this kind of catch all theory that we probably wouldn’t be around to observe things if such and such wasn’t true so it wouldn’t matter. And this seems to be used in the candy-coated text to hop between bits of theory quite frequently in the last half of the book. Smacks less of candy-coating, and more of FUDGE to me.
So should I follow the lessons of history he serves up and disbelieve what he tells me now? I kind of like his nerdlike humour, and the fact that he laughs about being placed right next to the speakers of a stadium sized concert because of his wheelchair. But I don’t like the fact that something probably quite complicated is simplified to the point that he has to reason with “probably… … isn’t it reasonable to assume… …it would be unreasonable to assume”