Mind Matters: A Book Club for Big Ideas

Join us for a discussion of Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions by Sabine Hossenfelder, in the Level 6 North Meeting Room of the VPL Central Branch.

This is the second time slot available for discussion of this book, the other being Tuesday December 9th at 6:00pm, at Spartacus Books. Please sign up for one or the other, and please update your RSVP in a timely manner if your plans change.

The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
According to Sabine Hossenfelder, it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers, or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics. Science and religion have the same roots, and they still tackle some of the same Where do we come from? Where do we go to? How much can we know? The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics. Over the last century, physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature. Not always, though, have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate.
In this lively, thought-provoking book, Hossenfelder takes on the biggest questions in Does the past still exist? Do particles think? Was the universe made for us? Has physics ruled out free will? Will we ever have a theory of everything? She lays out how far physicists are on the way to answering these questions, where the current limits are, and what questions might well remain unanswerable forever. Her book offers a no-nonsense yet entertaining take on some of the toughest riddles in existence, and will give the reader a solid grasp on what we know—and what we don’t know.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Hossenfelder criticizes speculative ideas like the multiverse, panpsychism, and simulation theory for overstepping what physics can test. Where do you think the line should be drawn between scientific imagination and metaphysical storytelling?
2. The book questions whether free will survives in a deterministic or probabilistic universe. Does redefining free will as “acting according to one’s motives and understanding” preserve its essence, or empty it of significance?
3. If humans are in principle predictable physical systems, what becomes of moral responsibility, love, or creativity?
4. If the past, present, and future all coexist in a “block universe,” what happens to the idea of change, choice, or moral responsibility?
5. If consciousness can’t be fully captured by computation or physics, does that point to a limitation in science—or in our current understanding of what consciousness is?
6. The anthropic principle claims we observe a universe compatible with life simply because we are here to observe it. Is that a profound insight or a tautology?
7. Hossenfelder insists that physics rules out no mystery except those that contradict evidence. Does this leave room for spiritual or philosophical forms of wonder, or only scientific curiosity?
8. How should scientists communicate the boundaries of what physics can say without undermining the sense of wonder that draws people to big questions in the first place?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you're able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.

Join us for a discussion of Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson argues that nations are not ancient or eternal entities, but “imagined political communities” that emerge under specific historical conditions. For Anderson, nationalism arises from the convergence of print capitalism, new forms of communication, and the decline of older religious and dynastic forms of belonging. Newspapers, novels, maps, censuses, and museums help create a shared sense of “meanwhile” and collective identity among people who will never meet, yet come to see themselves as part of the same nation.
The book traces how these national imaginaries formed first in the Americas and Europe, then spread worldwide, reshaping empires, colonial projects, and independence movements. Anderson is critical of both primordial accounts of nationalism and purely cynical ones; he treats nationalism as a powerful, often ambivalent force capable of inspiring solidarity and sacrifice, but also exclusion and violence.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Anderson famously calls the nation an “imagined political community.” What, if anything, distinguishes this kind of imagined community from other forms of imagined belonging (religions, fandoms, online communities, etc.)?
2. How convincing do you find Anderson’s claim that print capitalism and modern media are central to the rise of nationalism? In a digital media environment, do you think nationalism is weakened, strengthened, or transformed?
3. Anderson challenges the idea that nations are rooted in ancient, timeless identities. Why do you think the myth of deep antiquity is so attractive, and what happens when that myth is exposed?
4. The tools Anderson highlights—census, map, museum—both describe and reshape social reality. Can you think of contemporary equivalents (data platforms, social media, algorithms) that might be playing a similar nation-shaping role today?
5. Anderson distinguishes nationalism from racism, while acknowledging that racism can be expressed in nationalistic language. Do you find this distinction useful, or does it blur too easily in practice?
6. How does Anderson’s account help you think about contemporary debates over immigration, citizenship, and borders? Does it make national identity feel more negotiable or more fragile?
7. Many independence movements have drawn on nationalist ideas to resist empires or oppressive regimes. Does seeing nationalism as “imagined” undermine these struggles, or does it open up new ways of understanding their power?
8. After reading Anderson, do you feel more skeptical of national identities, or more appreciative of what they can do?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.

Join us for a discussion of Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.
The Vancouver Public Library has an unlimited license to the audiobook version of this title through the Palace Project app: https://vpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S38C10383820

Synopsis:
In Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott explores why so many large-scale plans to “improve” society go so badly wrong. He argues that modern states strive to make society “legible” by imposing standardized categories—fixed surnames, cadastral maps, uniform measures, rationalized city plans, monocrop agriculture—that simplify complex local practices so they can be taxed, administered, and controlled.
Scott calls the ideology behind these sweeping projects “high modernism”: a strong faith in scientific planning and technical expertise, often combined with authoritarian power and a weakened civil society. Through examples such as scientific forestry, Soviet collectivization, Tanzanian villagization, and planned cities like Brasília and Chandigarh, he shows how ignoring local knowledge (“metis”) and lived complexity can produce human and ecological disasters, even when intentions are benevolent.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Scott argues that states need “legibility” to tax, conscript, and regulate. When does making society more legible feel benign or even helpful, and when does it become dangerous?
2. High-modernist schemes promise order, efficiency, and progress. Why do these promises remain so attractive, even in the face of repeated failures?
3. Scott contrasts abstract, top-down plans with local, experiential knowledge (“metis”). How do you see this tension playing out today—in urban design, education, healthcare, climate policy, or tech?
4. Many of Scott’s examples involve authoritarian regimes, but he also criticizes liberal democracies and market-driven reforms. Do you think his critique targets “the state” as such, or a more general mindset that can appear in corporations, NGOs, and expert communities?
5. To what extent is “seeing like a state” something we all do when we rely on metrics, rankings, and simplified models? Are there situations where we have to think like a state to act at scale?
6. How should we balance the need for coordination and standardization (public health, infrastructure, climate action) with respect for local diversity and knowledge?
7. Scott celebrates informal, bottom-up practices and “everyday forms of resistance.” Do you find this reassuring, romanticized, or something in between?
8. If you were designing an institution or policy in light of Scott’s arguments, what concrete safeguards or design principles would you want to build in?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.

Join us for a discussion of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
Why Nations Fail argues that the key to understanding global differences in wealth and freedom lies in political and economic institutions. The authors distinguish between “inclusive” institutions, which protect property rights, encourage broad participation, and create incentives for innovation, and “extractive” institutions, which concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a narrow elite and allow that elite to prey on the rest of society.
Through historical case studies ranging from colonial Latin America and the Industrial Revolution to contemporary examples such as North and South Korea, they argue that inclusive institutions tend to produce sustained prosperity, while extractive institutions lead to stagnation, instability, and eventual crisis. Geography, culture, and policy “mistakes” matter less, in their view, than struggles over political power and the path-dependent dynamics of institutional change.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. The book claims that institutions—not geography or culture—are the primary drivers of national success or failure. How persuasive do you find this emphasis on institutions?
2. “Inclusive” and “extractive” are powerful but broad categories. Do they help clarify the world, or do they risk oversimplifying complex political and economic arrangements?
3. Many of the examples in the book involve colonial histories and sharp institutional breaks (e.g., North vs. South Korea). How well does the framework handle more gradual or ambiguous cases?
4. The authors argue that elites often block reform when it threatens their power, even if it would increase overall wealth. Can you think of contemporary examples that fit—or challenge—this pattern?
5. How does Why Nations Fail compare, in your mind, to other explanations of development and inequality (geography, culture, resource curses, world-systems, etc.)? Does it complement them or compete with them?
6. Some critics argue that the book underestimates the role of international systems, corporations, or global finance. Does the focus on national institutions obscure transnational power structures?
7. If inclusive institutions are the key to prosperity, what does that suggest about priorities for reform in wealthy democracies facing rising inequality?
8. After engaging with their argument, do you feel more optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects for institutional change in countries that are currently “failing”?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.