• Our Mathematical Universe

  • My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
  • By: Max Tegmark
  • Narrated by: Rob Shapiro
  • Length: 15 hrs and 22 mins
  • 4.6 out of 5 stars (2,480 ratings)

Prime logo Prime members: New to Audible?
Get 2 free audiobooks during trial.
Pick 1 audiobook a month from our unmatched collection.
Listen all you want to thousands of included audiobooks, Originals, and podcasts.
Access exclusive sales and deals.
Premium Plus auto-renews for $14.95/mo after 30 days. Cancel anytime.
Our Mathematical Universe  By  cover art

Our Mathematical Universe

By: Max Tegmark
Narrated by: Rob Shapiro
Try for $0.00

$14.95/month after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

Buy for $22.50

Buy for $22.50

Pay using card ending in
By confirming your purchase, you agree to Audible's Conditions of Use and Amazon's Privacy Notice. Taxes where applicable.

Publisher's summary

Max Tegmark leads us on an astonishing journey through past, present and future, and through the physics, astronomy, and mathematics that are the foundation of his work, most particularly his hypothesis that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and his theory of the ultimate multiverse. In a dazzling combination of both popular and groundbreaking science, he not only helps us grasp his often mind-boggling theories, but he also shares with us some of the often surprising triumphs and disappointments that have shaped his life as a scientist. Fascinating from first to last - this is a book that has already prompted the attention and admiration of some of the most prominent scientists and mathematicians.

PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio.

©2014 Max Tegmark (P)2013 Random House Audio

Critic reviews

“Tegmark offers a fascinating exploration of multiverse theories, each one offering new ways to explain ‘quantum weirdness’ and other mysteries that have plagued physicists, culminating in the idea that our physical world is ‘a giant mathematical object’ shaped by geometry and symmetry. Tegmark’s writing is lucid, enthusiastic, and outright entertaining, a thoroughly accessible discussion leavened with anecdotes and the pure joy of a scientist at work.” (Publishers Weekly, starred review)

“Lively and lucid, the narrative invites general readers into debates over computer models for brain function, over scientific explanations of consciousness, and over prospects for finding advanced life in other galaxies. Though he reflects soberly on the perils of nuclear war and of hostile artificial intelligence, Tegmark concludes with a bracingly upbeat call for scientifically minded activists who recognize a rare opportunity to make our special planet a force for cosmic progress. An exhilarating adventure for bold readers.” (Bryce Cristensen, Booklist, starred review)

“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.” (Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality)

What listeners say about Our Mathematical Universe

Average customer ratings
Overall
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    1,678
  • 4 Stars
    576
  • 3 Stars
    172
  • 2 Stars
    35
  • 1 Stars
    19
Performance
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    1,623
  • 4 Stars
    425
  • 3 Stars
    94
  • 2 Stars
    17
  • 1 Stars
    8
Story
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    1,446
  • 4 Stars
    496
  • 3 Stars
    158
  • 2 Stars
    44
  • 1 Stars
    14

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Sort by:
Filter by:
  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    4 out of 5 stars

Wow!

Great ideas and great narration makes this a great audio book. The last quarter of this book has some of the most interesting ideas in physics I have heard. I think these ideas are, by far, the most likely to lead to progress in physics. The first three-quarters is good, but is just a nice rehash similar to a bunch of other speculative physics books covering a brief history of cosmology leading to the theory of inflation and various levels of multiple universes, Boltzmann brains and such, finally culminating in the Measure Problem (one cannot assign consistent probabilities to infinite sets). Then the book gets really interesting! The author proposes that math does not model the universe, but that math IS the universe. The relations defined by a mathematical structure is all that is needed for us to believe all we see and feel is real. Nothing physical is needed. I really thought I was alone in being a strong proponent of this Mathematical Universe idea, so I have quite pleasantly surprised to find this excellent presentation. I was led to my conclusions by a much different path (Bell’s Theorem & Bell Test Experiments) and take these ideas to even greater extremes than Tegmark, but this is the best (the only?) popular presentations of these ideas I have seen.

It may just be awkward editing or just these ideas are heady stuff, but by the end of the book Tegmark seems a bit schizophrenic. He seems to reject continuums and infinities and randomness as unreal (which is what I think), but then he continues to refer to, and use, these as if they were real. Also a good new model in fundamental physics should address multiple issues in physics, but Tegmark does not use his ideas of the Mathematical Universe to clarify the understanding of quantum mechanics (particularly Bell’s Theorem) and the problem linking General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. I think Tegmark underestimated the depth of the Measure Problem. The underlying problem is in any reality, it is simply not possible to take a random sample from an infinite set. Thus any assignment of probability to such constructs is nonsense. Tegmark seems to still be hoping for a resolution of the Measure Problem.

The author has a really pleasant way of covering the history of cosmology, making the story like a mystery novel, using detective work to explain one mystery after another. Yet what makes this book really worth reading is the last quarter where the ideas about the Mathematical Universe are explored. I suspect that in a few hundred years the conception of the Mathematical Universe will be considered the great turning point leading to a final, simple and beautiful, Theory of Everything.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

73 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    3 out of 5 stars

Main points are off the mark

The author really explains science very well. In the first half of the book when he's providing background and context he excels. He steps the listener through how we progressed through history from a village perspective to a multiverse. The author states elegantly, the reality of the multiverse is not a theory in of itself since it comes out of the best theory we have to describe our universe, Inflation Theory. If you accept that inflation describes the universe at a fundamental level, but don't like multiverses you need to first come up with a theory that can explain everything inflation does but take out the part where inflation creates other universes not an easy thing to do. Also, the book works well when he's explaining everything you every wanted to know about the Cosmic Microwave Background but were afraid to ask. It really does give good answers about flat space and dark energy and why it's so important to understand the CMB.

But, the author really didn't write the book to tell us those things. He wrote it for two main reasons. He wants to tell you why the Many World Hypothesis (Hugh Everett III) is the best explanation for the mysterious of physics and then goes on to tell you how our universe is mathematics.

I love math at least as much as the next geek and wish the universe was math, but I gave up those kind of thoughts a long time ago. As Confucius said (no, really he did!), he looked for truth in mathematics and studied it for five years before he realized truth laid elsewhere.

I'm not against using the Many World Hypothesis to explain the measurement problem but the approach the author used just was not convincing. I would strongly recommend the David Deutsch book, "The Beginning of Infinity" it covers the same kind of science but is much more coherent. I'll give a shout out to Tegmark, he quotes people like Deutsch and many others I have read and gives them kudos even though he doesn't agree with him throughout the book.

Another book, I would recommend instead is a science fiction book called "Thrice Upon a Time", by James P Hogan, he covers the Many World Hypothesis in a more consistent way than this book does. (Yes, it's fiction but uses science and speculation to explain).

Overall, the reason the author really wrote the book is the reasons I can't fully recommend this book.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

66 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

An interesting and thought provoking hypothesis.

Max Tegmark does a great job of explaining complex physics and mathematical concepts in simple language. Anyone who finds this kind of subject matter interesting will appreciate his hypothesis. Rob Shapiro narrated the book superbly.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

23 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    3 out of 5 stars

Took a long time to get to the point

I found this book disappointing, mainly because the author does not even begin to address his supposedly ground-breaking, controversial new theory until about 3/4 through the book. Everything before that is review. If you've studied physics and cosmology, or read a lot of Hawking, Greene, Mlodinow, etc., you will be bored through this part (which, I repeat, is most of the book). If this is the first book you've read on the subject, you might not mind this.

I will also say that Mr. Tegmark dips into some pretty far-out ideas from time to time, and I felt like he was trying to defend as science, some ideas that were plainly not science. Of course, he says they are science, so maybe I'm just wrong about that.

When he does finally get to talking about "Our Mathematical Universe" (there's a chapter in the book where he clearly announces something like "now I'm going to start talking about my new theory...". Again, that's about halfway through the second part of the audiobook), it's pretty interesting for a while. But it seemed like it quickly became hard to hold my attention to the reading. This may have been my own fault, but it seemed like he was just getting too far into fringe science for me, and kind of rambling. It's not that I reject his theory. Actually, he may be on to something (his "new theory" was covered briefly in one of Brian Greene's books, by the way, so it's not that new -- or maybe Greene got it from him?)

Anyway, I did find Mr. Tegmark's many anecdotes about his life as a student, a scientist and a father interesting and it was cool how he integrated his own experiences with the science he was presenting. I did feel that I learned some things from this book, so I can't give it that bad of a review.

In general, I would just warn the reader: if you're not new to physics and cosmology, be ready to wade through a LOT of review before getting to anything new.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

16 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

Mind Expanding

Any additional comments?

Whether or not you believe the author's conclusions (he's not sure if he does so himself), you will be led on a road of exploration into the nature of the universe which will astonish you. The book is surprisingly easy to follow and immensely rewarding.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

12 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    2 out of 5 stars

AMEN-RA & ATKINS RENDER TEMARK'S MUSINGS OTIOSE

The present review takes the form of correspondence I was compelled to initiate with the author of "Our Mathematical Universe". It reads as follows:

Greetings Prof. Tegmark,

I found your book, Our Mathematical Universe, and your 1998 publication in the Annals of Physics most interesting. I will understand if you are inclined to ignore the analysis of your work that I endeavor to advance herein. After all, I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician. Rather, I am a philosophically oriented psychotherapist/thanatologist with a background in Biology and Epidemiology. As I find dissimulation objectionable, I shall not delay in disclosing my chief criticism: the theory/model that you propound in your book (and paper)—namely, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)—is not substantially novel in essence. I appreciate your appropriate invocation of Pythagoras, Plato, Galileo, and Eugene Wigner in chronicling the continuity of the mathematical description of nature. I am less appreciative of your apparent failure to acknowledge the fundamental unity between your ideas and that of renowned chemist, Sir Peter W. Atkins. Acknowledging my all-too-human egocentrism, I am even less appreciative of your failure to acknowledge my variant of the “Mathematical Universe Hypothesis” or what I call in my book (Mind, Matter, Mathematics, & Mortality (M4)) the Constitutional Interpretation of Mathematics or ‘Nunistic Numericism’. Sir Atkins offers an interpretation of mathematics that he calls Deep Structuralism. He contends that there are strong and weak variants of Deep Structuralism. However, as I argue in M4, these are essentially indistinguishable. Whereas, Weak Deep Structuralism maintains that nature is merely describable in mathematical terms, Strong Deep Structuralism maintains that nature and mathematics are one and the same, sharing the same structure. It is in this sense that your MUH is ostensibly intellectually subsumed by Atkins’ Deep Structuralism. Do not despair though. For as I argue in M4, Atkins’ idea is not an advancement over that of the Pythagoreans, Platonists, or any subsequent scientist, theorist or philosopher. Essentially, they have all said the same thing: ‘How extraordinary it is that the elements of existence are so amenable to mathematical analysis. An explanation is surely in order.’ What makes these nominally ‘numericist’ approaches otiose (the MUH included unfortunately) is their absence of empiricism. M4 begins by reminding readers that the ancient philosophical problem of reconciling mind and matter has theretofore yet to be accomplished. It further reminds readers of the conventional Cartesian conception of matter as encompassing entities exhibiting extension and, obversely, mind being characterized by the absence of extensibility. These definitions of Descartes still seem sound. M4 maintains that empirical evidence establishes that the fundamental constituents of matter are essentially infinitesimal point particles possessed purely of properties and that these properties (as you yourself soberly state) are mathematical in nature. [The Quark Model of Matter owing to the discovery of the MIT/SLAC team is the principal basis of this postulation.] If the elementary particles of which “matter” is composed are dimensionless, devoid of extension, they are then immaterial. The properties of these point particles are explicable on the basis of quantum mechanical wavefunctions—thoroughly mathematical entities. Moreover, this mathematical explicability may be epistemologically exhaustive, telling us all there is to know about the quantum realm. I maintain that it is only when elementary particles have been convincingly divested of materiality (on the basis of provisional empirical investigations) that the mathematical essence of existence can be established. This is why I maintain that the M4 dispensation of the “MUH”—Constitutional Nunistic Numericism (CNN)—is the most momentous, scientifically sound, most veridical variant of the mathematical interpretations of reality.

Then there is the question of conceptual fecundity. M4 maintains that the modified “Double Slit” experiment of quantum mechanics permits the interpretation that quantum particles exhibit awareness or a property closely akin thereto. I call this property ‘Proto-Percipience’. It would seem to explain why particles apparently alter their behavior, displaying wavelike or particulate properties depending on whether they are being “observed” or not—indeed, whether a detection device is directed thereat, whether such a device is “on” or “off”. Naturally, I argue that evolution employed this Proto-Percipient property in enabling the accretion of awareness in organisms owing to its adaptiveness. This conception, contingent upon the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, can be contrasted with your espousal of Everett’s parallel worlds perspective. Plainly speaking, it seems more plausible to postulate particle Proto-Percipience or rudimentary awareness than to contend that consciousness “splits” each time a quantum phenomenon is observed. Such ‘cosmic schizophrenia’ compels the creation of a universe, ex nihilo, each time a conscious agent makes a quantum observation entailing choice. This seems somewhat extravagant and rather inelegant. Finally, M4 maintains that the ultimate immateriality of matter, the essential ‘mathematicality’ of matter, the concomitant modularity of the mind and the singularity of the substance of the “soul” or “spirit” are integrated in such a way as to explain our irrepressible intimation of Immortality. This is what impels me to opine that M4 is not merely a mathematical and metaphysical Theory of Everything (TOE) but the most compelling and comprehensive of all competing cosmological theories.

I greatly appreciate your contributions to the field of physics and, indeed, to the advancement of human knowledge. As an admittedly obscure theorist I also appreciate your embodiment of the academic “Golden Mean”—that is, your decision to simultaneously pursue orthodox professional ideas deemed appropriate by the conventional community of physicists and explore “radical” research deviating from the restrictive domain of your discipline. I applaud and respect you. I also applaud your humanness and apparently authentic vulnerability. By your own admission you have been “scooped” in more than one instance. To many, it may be demoralizing to engage in exhaustive intellectual work only to learn that someone else has encapsulated and advanced the very ideas inherent in one’s own opus. Understandably, we covet recognition for our contributions. You have dealt with such occurrences admirably. As you state in Our Mathematical Universe, it helps to hope that in some multiplicity of parallel worlds you are indeed the originator of all those ideas that you conceived in this world.

I hope you do not object to my ending with a quote from M4. I think it reinforces our intellectual kinship.

“Lifting the veil of materiality from the face of Nature leads us not only to the unification of mind and matter but also to the unification of matter and mathematics. The rather unreasonable, otherwise inexplicable effectiveness with which mathematics describes physical phenomena is now seen to be a consequence of the identity of ‘physical’ entities and mathematical entities. In fact, the very concept of a mathematical entity is now arguably intelligible—mathematical entities and the physical entities they were once thought to merely symbolize are one and the same. One need no longer conceive of a parallel world of immaterial mathematical essences. Mathematical entities need not be relegated to a realm distinct from the space and time of our Universe. Immaterial mathematical entities comprise the substance of which boulders, bodies, and brains are built and brains are evolutionarily engineered organs that have acquired the capacity to comprehend the principles that govern their existence. We have hereby effectuated the integration of all Being into a seamless Whole. Mind, Matter, and Mathematics are One. Now what of Mortality....”

Mind, Matter, Mathematics, & Mortality (M4): Musings on a Momentous Metaphysical Theory (Dr. Nun Sava-Siva Amen-Ra, 2011)


A response would be most welcome as I truly value your ideas and perspective. I have taken the liberty of attaching my book. Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards,
Nun
18 January MMXIV

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

12 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    4 out of 5 stars

it depends on who YOU are

What did you like best about Our Mathematical Universe? What did you like least?

I am not a physicist, just educated in another side of science (I am a psychiatrist) and very interested in understanding the nature of reality. I was very impressed by the passion of the writer and that was satisfying. Most of the material covered went above my head (e.g. the entire concept of "level 4 multiverse"). However I enjoyed the little that I actually understood here and there. I think I would have liked it more if I were a physicist.

What did you like best about this story?

Mostly the passion for pursuit of reality.

What about Rob Shapiro’s performance did you like?

Excellent job!

Did Our Mathematical Universe inspire you to do anything?

Yes! read more books!

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

9 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

A brilliant book on physics

This book is just really brilliant. Such heavy science is explained with very simple words and metaphors. Highly recommended!

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

9 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

beautiful!

If Sean Carroll, Vlatko Vedral, and Richard Feynman morphed into one person and wrote a book, I think it might look something like this book. I loved every page. Without question, this was one of my favorite books about the universe.

Lately I have been interested in information theory. Reading multiple books on the same subject, there is always the danger of becoming bored. After reading other books on the subject, I read this book and Island of Knowledge by Gleiser at the same time. Both of these books were excellent. Both books had a good deal of overlap but were markedly different in important ways. Rather than being repetitive, they served more to reinforce important ideas. The time I spent getting familiar with these books (often reading chapters over and over again) was deeply, deeply enjoyable.

Tegmark's sprinkling of biographical information along side his tutorials on basic and complex concepts in physics reminded me a lot of Feynman, if Feynman had been humble. Tegmark's gift for making the complex accessible to non-physicists reminded me of Carroll's gift in relating to all types of audiences. The subject matter in this book reminded me of Vedral's decoding reality, but it delved in a bit more at times and provided a richer over all experience, which felt more satisfying.

Tegmark provides one of the simplest and most beautiful descriptions of how each thing (be it atom, star, person, etc) is merely a compilation of smaller things that can ultimately be thought about ( and indeed do exist) as tiny bits of information. For sure, this argument has been made many times before, but I enjoyed Tegmark's argument to a surprising degree.

This was one of the most satisfying reading experiences I have had in a long time. When Tegmark related his Jekyll and Hyde story and then got into the meat of his argument, my brain was in a constant state of euphoria. Braingasm, braingasm, braingasm! I could feel the dopamine rush as he flooded my brain with idea after idea. While at university, I used to sit and talk with two of my best friends, and intellectual soulmates, about the ultimate nature of the universe. These times are some of my most treasured memories in life. Reading this book was like being back in those conversations.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

6 people found this helpful

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    4 out of 5 stars

Making Reality Real

Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? If so, why?

Definitely if they have an interest in both physics and philosophy and how they intersect.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

I especially liked the chapter concerning: Internal Reality, External Reality and Consensus Reality. I also liked the way the author summarized his main concepts at the end of each chapter.

Any additional comments?

This book isn't for everyone, but is ideal for someone who wants to seriously explore some of the ultimate questions. Although it is technical in content, with some effort it can be understood by a non-science type such as myself. Although I don't usually do so, this book may get a second listen from me.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

4 people found this helpful