{"product_id":"the-big-picture-isbn-9781101984253","title":"The Big Picture","description":"\u003cb\u003eThe instant \u003ci\u003eNew York Times\u003c\/i\u003e bestseller about humanity's place in the universe—and how we understand it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cb\u003e“Vivid...impressive....Splendidly informative.”\u003c\/b\u003e—\u003ci\u003eThe New York Times\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cb\u003e“\u003c\/b\u003eSucceeds spectacularly.\u003cb\u003e”\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e—Science\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e“\u003c\/b\u003eA tour de force.\u003cb\u003e”\u003c\/b\u003e—\u003ci\u003eSalon\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAlready internationally acclaimed for his elegant, lucid writing on the most challenging notions in modern physics, Sean Carroll is emerging as one of the greatest humanist thinkers of his generation as he brings his extraordinary intellect to bear not only on Higgs bosons and extra dimensions but now also on our deepest personal questions: Where are we? Who are we? Are our emotions, our beliefs, and our hopes and dreams ultimately meaningless out there in the void? Do human purpose and meaning fit into a scientific worldview?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn short chapters filled with intriguing historical anecdotes, personal asides, and rigorous exposition, readers learn the difference between how the world works at the quantum level, the cosmic level, and the human level\u003ci\u003e—\u003c\/i\u003eand then how each connects to the other. Carroll's presentation of the principles that have guided the scientific revolution from Darwin and Einstein to the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe is dazzlingly unique.  \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCarroll shows how an avalanche of discoveries in the past few hundred years has changed our world and what really matters to us. Our lives are dwarfed like never before by the immensity of space and time, but they are redeemed by our capacity to comprehend it and give it meaning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture \u003c\/i\u003eis an unprecedented scientific worldview, a tour de force that will sit on shelves alongside the works of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, and E. O. Wilson for years to come.\u003cb\u003ePraise for \u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003eIncluded on Brain Picking’s “The Greatest Science Books of 2016” List\u003cbr\u003eIncluded on NPR Science Friday’s “The Best Science Books of 2016” List\u003ci\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Weaving the threads of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and philosophy into a seamless narrative tapestry, Sean Carroll enthralls us with what we’ve figured out in the universe and humbles us with what we don’t yet understand. Yet in the end, it’s the meaning of it all that feeds your soul of curiosity.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of \u003ci\u003eCosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e“With profound intelligence and lucid, unpretentious language, Sean Carroll beautifully articulates the worldview suggested by contemporary naturalism. Thorny issues like free will, the direction of time, and the source of morality are clarified with elegance and insight. \u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e shows how the scientific worldview enriches our understanding of the universe and ourselves. A reliable account of our knowledge of the universe, it is also a serene meditation on our need for meaning. This is a book that should be read by everybody.”—Carlo Rovelli, author of\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e \u003ci\u003eSeven Brief Lessons on Physics\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\"Vivid...impressive....Splendidly informative.\"\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e—The New York Times Book Review\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Never hectoring, always tolerant, the author presents a seductively attractive picture of a universe whose ultimate laws lie within our grasp....[Carroll] gives us a highly enjoyable and lucid tour through a wide range of topics....Even if you don’t agree with what he says, you are unlikely to be enraged by such an urbane and engaging lecturer; more likely, you will be enthralled.”—\u003ci\u003eThe Wall Street Journal\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e“A nuanced inquiry into ‘how our desire to matter fits in with the nature of reality at its deepest levels,’ in which Carroll offers an assuring dose of what he calls ‘existential therapy’ reconciling the various and often seemingly contradictory dimensions of our experience.”\u003ci\u003e—\u003c\/i\u003eMaria Popova\u003ci\u003e, Brain Pickings\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“[\u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e is] a tour de force that offers a comprehensive snapshot of the human situation in our infinitely strange universe, and it does this with highly accessible language and engaging storytelling.”—\u003ci\u003eSalon\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e“Sean Carroll’s holistic vision accommodates the sciences and the humanities and has a high probability of provoking readers into clarifying their own views about the complex relations among science, religion, and morality.”—\u003ci\u003eThe Times Literary Supplement\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“\u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e impresses. Carroll is a lively and sympathetic author who writes as well about biology and philosophy as he does about his own field of physics.”—\u003ci\u003eFinancial Times\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Carroll is the perfect guide on this wondrous journey of discovery. A brilliantly lucid exposition of profound philosophical and scientific issues in a language accessible to lay readers.”—\u003ci\u003eKirkus Reviews\u003c\/i\u003e (starred review)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\"Carroll presents a means through which people can better understand themselves, their universe, and their conceptions of a meaningful life.”—\u003ci\u003ePublishers Weekly\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e“Guides us through several centuries’ worth of scientific discoveries to show how they have shaped our understanding and indeed how the laws of nature are linked to the most fundamental human questions of life, death, and our place in the cosmos.”—\u003ci\u003eLibrary Journal\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Intensely insightful.”—\u003ci\u003eScientific American\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“With its delightful blend of evocative love paens and four-dimensional integrals, \u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e offers a uniquely physical vision of life's meaning. This is poetry.”—\u003ci\u003ePhysics Today\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“[Carroll] sets out to show how various phenomena, including thought, choice, consciousness, and value, hang together with the scientific account of reality that has been developed in physics in the past 100 years. He attempts to do all this without relying on specialized jargon from philosophy and physics and succeeds spectacularly in achieving both aims.”—\u003ci\u003eScience\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e“True to the grand scope of its title....Anyone who enjoys asking big questions will find a lot to consider.”\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cb\u003e—\u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eBooklist\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Language philosophy, quantum mechanics, general relativity—they’re all in \u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e. Sean Carroll is a fantastically erudite and entertaining writer.”—Elizabeth Kolbert, author of Pulitzer Prize–winner \u003ci\u003eThe Sixth Extinction\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e“From the big bang to the meaning of human existence, \u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture \u003c\/i\u003eis exactly that—a magisterial, yet deeply fascinating, grand tour through the issues that really matter. Blending science and philosophy, Sean Carroll gives us a humane perspective on the universe and our place in it. As gripping as it is important, \u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e can change the way you think about the world.”—Neil Shubin, author of \u003ci\u003eYour Inner Fish\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “In this timely exploration of the universe and its mysteries—both physical and metaphysical—Sean Carroll illuminates the world around us with clarity, beauty and, ultimately, with much needed wisdom.”—Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program at MIT and author of \u003ci\u003eThe Poisoner’s Handbook\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e“Sean Carroll is a leading theoretical cosmologist with the added ability to write about his subject with unusual clarity, flare, and wit.”—Alan Lightman, author of \u003ci\u003eThe Accidental Universe\u003c\/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003eEinstein’s Dreams\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e“Until now you might have gotten away believing modern physics is about things either too small or too far away to care much about. But no more. Sean Carroll’s new book reveals how physicists’ quest to better understand the fundamental laws of nature has led to astonishing insights into life, the universe, and everything. Above all, a courageous book, and an overdue one.”\u003ci\u003e—\u003c\/i\u003eSabine Hossenfelder, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Instead of feeling humbled and insignificant when gazing upward on a clear starry night, Carroll takes us by the hand and shows us how fantastic the inanimate physical universe is and how special each animate human can be. It is lucid, spirited, and penetrating.”—Michael S. Gazzaniga, author of \u003ci\u003eWho's in Charge?\u003c\/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003eTales from Both Sides of the Brain\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e“Sean Carroll’s lucid \u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Big Picture\u003c\/i\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003ereveals how the universe works and our place in it. Carroll, a philosophically sophisticated physicist, discusses consciousness without gimmicks, and deftly shows how current physics is so solid that it rules out ESP forever.”—Steven Pinker, author of\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Better Angels of Our Nature\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cb\u003eSEAN CARROLL \u003c\/b\u003eis a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He received his PhD in 1993 from Harvard University. Recently, Carroll has worked on the foundations of quantum mechanics, the arrow of time, and the emergence of complexity. He has been awarded prizes and fellowships by the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and the Royal Society of London. His most recent award, in 2014, was from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Carroll has appeared on \u003ci\u003eThe Colbert Report\u003c\/i\u003e (twice), PBS’s \u003ci\u003eNOVA\u003c\/i\u003e, and \u003ci\u003eThrough the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman\u003c\/i\u003e, and he frequently serves as a science consultant for film and television. He has been interviewed by various NPR shows, \u003ci\u003eScientific American\u003c\/i\u003e,\u003ci\u003e Wired\u003c\/i\u003e, and \u003ci\u003eThe New York Times\u003c\/i\u003e. He has given a TED talk on the multiverse that has more than one million views, and he has participated in a number of well-attended public debates concerning material in his new book, including one in New York City in 2014 with Eben Alexander.1\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The Fundamental Nature of Reality\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In the old Road Runner cartoons, Wile E. Coyote would frequently      find himself running off the edge of a cliff. But he wouldn't, as      our experience with gravity might lead us to expect, start falling      to the ground below, at least not right away. Instead, he would      hover motionless, in puzzlement; it was only when he realized      there was no longer any ground beneath him that he would suddenly      crash downward.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e We are all Wile E. Coyote. Since human beings began thinking about      things, we have contemplated our place in the universe, the reason      why we are all here. Many possible answers have been put forward,      and partisans of one view or another have occasionally disagreed      with each other. But for a long time, there has been a shared view      that there is some meaning, out there somewhere, waiting to be      discovered and acknowledged. There is a point to all this; things      happen for a reason. This conviction has served as the ground      beneath our feet, as the foundation on which we've constructed all      the principles by which we live our lives.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Gradually, our confidence in this view has begun to erode. As we      understand the world better, the idea that it has a transcendent      purpose seems increasingly untenable. The old picture has been      replaced by a wondrous new one-one that is breathtaking and      exhilarating in many ways, challenging and vexing in others. It is      a view in which the world stubbornly refuses to give us any direct      answers about the bigger questions of purpose and meaning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The problem is that we haven't quite admitted to ourselves that      this transition has taken place, nor fully accepted its      far-reaching implications. The issues are well-known. Over the      course of the last two centuries, Darwin has upended our view of      life, Nietzsche's madman bemoaned the death of God,      existentialists have searched for authenticity in the face of      absurdity, and modern atheists have been granted a seat at      society's table. And yet, many continue on as if nothing has      changed; others revel in the new order, but placidly believe that      adjusting our perspective is just a matter of replacing a few old      homilies with a few new ones.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The truth is that the ground has disappeared beneath us, and we      are just beginning to work up the courage to look down.      Fortunately, not everything in the air immediately plummets to its      death. Wile E. Coyote would have been fine if he had been equipped      with one of those ACME-brand jet packs, so that he could fly      around under his own volition. It's time to get to work building      our conceptual jet packs.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e What is the fundamental nature of reality? Philosophers call this      the question of ontology-the study of the basic structure of the      world, the ingredients and relationships of which the universe is      ultimately composed. It can be contrasted with epistemology, which      is how we obtain knowledge about the world. Ontology is the branch      of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality; we also talk      about \"an\" ontology, referring to a specific idea about what that      nature actually is.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The number of approaches to ontology alive in the world today is      somewhat overwhelming. There is the basic question of whether      reality exists at all. A realist says, \"Of course it does\"; but      there are also idealists, who think that capital-M Mind is all      that truly exists, and the so-called real world is just a series      of thoughts inside that Mind. Among realists, we have monists, who      think that the world is a single thing, and dualists, who believe      in two distinct realms (such as \"matter\" and \"spirit\"). Even      people who agree that there is only one type of thing might      disagree about whether there are fundamentally different kinds of      properties (such as mental properties and physical properties)      that those things can have. And even people who agree that there      is only one kind of thing, and that the world is purely physical,      might diverge when it comes to asking which aspects of that world      are \"real\" versus \"illusory.\" (Are colors real? Is consciousness?      Is morality?)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Whether or not you believe in God-whether you are a theist or an      atheist-is part of your ontology, but far from the whole story.      \"Religion\" is a completely different kind of thing. It is      associated with certain beliefs, often including belief in God,      although the definition of \"God\" can differ substantially within      religion's broad scope. Religion can also be a cultural force, a      set of institutions, a way of life, a historical legacy, a      collection of practices and principles. It's much more, and much      messier, than a checklist of doctrines. A counterpart to religion      would be humanism, a collection of beliefs and practices that is      as varied and malleable as religion is.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The broader ontology typically associated with atheism is      naturalism-there is only one world, the natural world, exhibiting      patterns we call the \"laws of nature,\" and which is discoverable      by the methods of science and empirical investigation. There is no      separate realm of the supernatural, spiritual, or divine; nor is      there any cosmic teleology or transcendent purpose inherent in the      nature of the universe or in human life. \"Life\" and      \"consciousness\" do not denote essences distinct from matter; they      are ways of talking about phenomena that emerge from the interplay      of extraordinarily complex systems. Purpose and meaning in life      arise through fundamentally human acts of creation, rather than      being derived from anything outside ourselves. Naturalism is a      philosophy of unity and patterns, describing all of reality as a      seamless web.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Naturalism has a long and distinguished pedigree. We find traces      of it in Buddhism, in the atomists of ancient Greece and Rome, and      in Confucianism. Hundreds of years after the death of Confucius, a      Chinese thinker named Wang Chong was a vocal naturalist,      campaigning against the belief in ghosts and spirits that had      become popular in his day. But it is really only in the last few      centuries that the evidence in favor of naturalism has become hard      to resist.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e [\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e All of these isms can feel a bit overwhelming. Fortunately we      don't need to be rigorous or comprehensive about listing the      possibilities. But we do need to think hard about ontology. It's      at the heart of our Wile E. Coyote problem.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The last five hundred or so years of human intellectual progress      have completely upended how we think about the world at a      fundamental level. Our everyday experience suggests that there are      large numbers of truly different kinds of stuff out there. People,      spiders, rocks, oceans, tables, fire, air, stars-these all seem      dramatically different from one another, deserving of independent      entries in our list of basic ingredients of reality. Our \"folk      ontology\" is pluralistic, full of myriad distinct categories. And      that's not even counting notions that seem more abstract but are      arguably equally \"real,\" from numbers to our goals and dreams to      our principles of right and wrong.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e As our knowledge grows, we have moved by fits and starts in the      direction of a simpler, more unified ontology. It's an ancient      impulse. In the sixth century BCE, the Greek philosopher Thales of      Miletus suggested that water is a primary principle from which all      else is derived, while across the world, Hindu philosophers put      forward Brahman as the single ultimate reality. The development of      science has accelerated and codified the trend.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Galileo observed that Jupiter has moons, implying that it is a      gravitating body just like the Earth. Isaac Newton showed that the      force of gravity is universal, underlying both the motion of the      planets and the way that apples fall from trees. John Dalton      demonstrated how different chemical compounds could be thought of      as combinations of basic building blocks called atoms. Charles      Darwin established the unity of life from common ancestors. James      Clerk Maxwell and other physicists brought together such disparate      phenomena as lightning, radiation, and magnets under the single      rubric of \"electromagnetism.\" Close analysis of starlight revealed      that stars are made of the same kinds of atoms as we find here on      Earth, with Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin eventually proving that they      are mostly hydrogen and helium. Albert Einstein unified space and      time, joining together matter and energy along the way. Particle      physics has taught us that every atom in the periodic table of the      elements is an arrangement of just three basic particles: protons,      neutrons, and electrons. Every object you have ever seen or bumped      into in your life is made of just those three particles.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e We're left with a very different view of reality from where we      started. At a fundamental level, there aren't separate \"living      things\" and \"nonliving things,\" \"things here on Earth\" and \"things      up in the sky,\" \"matter\" and \"spirit.\" There is just the basic      stuff of reality, appearing to us in many different forms.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e How far will this process of unification and simplification go?      It's impossible to say for sure. But we have a reasonable guess,      based on our progress thus far: it will go all the way. We will      ultimately understand the world as a single, unified reality, not      caused or sustained or influenced by anything outside itself.      That's a big deal.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e [\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Naturalism presents a hugely grandiose claim, and we have every      right to be skeptical. When we look into the eyes of another      person, it doesn't seem like what we're seeing is simply a      collection of atoms, some sort of immensely complicated chemical      reaction. We often feel connected to the universe in some way that      transcends the merely physical, whether it's a sense of awe when      we contemplate the sea or sky, a trancelike reverie during      meditation or prayer, or the feeling of love when we're close to      someone we care about. The difference between a living being and      an inanimate object seems much more profound than the way certain      molecules are arranged. Just looking around, the idea that      everything we see and feel can somehow be explained by impersonal      laws governing the motion of matter and energy seems preposterous.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It's a bit of a leap, in the face of all of our commonsense      experience, to think that life can simply start up out of      non-life, or that our experience of consciousness needs no more      ingredients than atoms obeying the laws of physics. Of equal      importance, appeals to transcendent purpose or a higher power seem      to provide answers to questions to some of the pressing \"Why?\"      questions we humans like to ask: Why this universe? Why am I here?      Why anything at all? Naturalism, by contrast, simply says: those      aren't the right questions to ask. It's a lot to swallow, and not      a view that anyone should accept unquestioningly.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Naturalism isn't an obvious, default way to think about the world.      The case in its favor has built up gradually over the years, a      consequence of our relentless quest to improve our understanding      of how things work at a deep level, but there is still work to be      done. We don't know how the universe began, or if it's the only      universe. We don't know the ultimate, complete laws of physics. We      don't know how life began, or how consciousness arose. And we      certainly haven't agreed on the best way to live in the world as      good human beings.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The naturalist needs to make the case that, even without actually      having these answers yet, their worldview is still by far the most      likely framework in which we will eventually find them. That's      what we're here to do.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e [\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The pressing, human questions we have about our lives depend      directly on our attitudes toward the universe at a deeper level.      For many people, those attitudes are adopted rather informally      from the surrounding culture, rather than arising out of rigorous      personal reflection. Each new generation of people doesn't invent      the rules of living from scratch; we inherit ideas and values that      have evolved over vast stretches of time. At the moment, the      dominant image of the world remains one in which human life is      cosmically special and significant, something more than mere      matter in motion. We need to do better at reconciling how we talk      about life's meaning with what we know about the scientific image      of our universe.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Among people who acknowledge the scientific basis of reality,      there is often a conviction-usually left implicit-that all of that      philosophical stuff like freedom, morality, and purpose should      ultimately be pretty easy to figure out. We're collections of      atoms, and we should be nice to one another. How hard can it      really be?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It can be really hard. Being nice to one another is a good start,      but it doesn't get us very far. What happens when different people      have incompatible conceptions of niceness? Giving peace a chance      sounds like a swell idea, but in the real world, there are      different actors with different interests, and conflicts will      inevitably arise. The absence of a supernatural guiding force      doesn't mean we can't meaningfully talk about right and wrong, but      it doesn't mean we instantly know one from the other, either.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Meaning in life can't be reduced to simplistic mottos. In some      number of years I will be dead; some memory of my time here on      Earth may linger, but I won't be around to savor it. With that in      mind, what kind of life is worth living? How should we balance      family and career, fortune and pleasure, action and contemplation?      The universe is large, and I am a tiny part of it, constructed of      the same particles and forces as everything else: by itself, that      tells us precisely nothing about how to answer such questions.      We're going to have to be both smart and courageous as we work to      get this right.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 2\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Poetic Naturalism\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e One thing Star Trek never really got clear on was how transporter      machines are supposed to work. Do they disassemble you one atom at      a time, zip those atoms elsewhere, and then reassemble them? Or do      they send only a blueprint of you, the information contained in      your arrangement of atoms, and then reconstruct you from existing      matter in the environment to which you are traveling? Most often      the ship's crew talks as if your actual atoms travel through      space, but then how do we explain \"The Enemy Within\"? That's the      episode, you'll remember, in which a transporter malfunction      causes two copies of Captain Kirk to be beamed aboard the      Enterprise. It's hard to see how two copies of a person could be      made out of one person-sized collection of atoms.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Fortunately for viewers of the show, the two copies of Kirk      weren't precisely identical. One copy was the normal (good) Kirk,      and the other was evil. Even better, the evil one quickly got      scratched on the face by Yeoman Rand, so it wasn't hard to tell      the two apart.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e But what if they had been identical? We would then be faced with a      puzzle about the nature of personal identity, popularized by      philosopher Derek Parfit. Imagine a transporter machine that could      disassemble a single individual and reconstruct multiple exact      copies of them out of different atoms. Which one, if any, would be      the \"real\" one? If there were just a single copy, most of us would      have no trouble accepting them as the original person. (Using      different atoms doesn't really matter; in actual human bodies, our      atoms are lost and replaced all the time.) Or what if one copy      were made of new atoms, while the original you remained intact-but      the original suffered a tragic death a few seconds after the      duplicate was made. Would the duplicate count as the same person?","brand":"Dutton","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46301937729765,"sku":"NP9781101984253","price":18.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9781101984253.jpg?v=1767738375","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/products\/the-big-picture-isbn-9781101984253","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}