
In Visions, Dr. Kaku examines in vivid detail how the three scientific revolutions that profoundly reshaped the twentieth-century - the quantum, biogenetic, and computer revolutions - will transform the way we live in the twenty-first century. What makes Michio Kaku's vision of the future of science so compelling and authoritative is that it is based on the groundbreaking research already underway at leading laboratories around the world. Weaving interviews with over 150 scientists - several of them Nobel laureates - into a rich, inspiring narrative, Dr. Kaku reveals the growing consensus among key scientists about how science will likely evolve through the early, middle, and late years of the twenty-first century.
> It was intriguing and piqued my interest. However, it smells a lot like hyped-up crackpot science to me ... if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. There's a lot of vagueness here, "what ifs", etc. Like "What if we could evolve hardware to make use of hidden physics?" Yes, well, what if? What is "hidden physics"? And why doesn't the author try it? :-)
> I looked briefly at his bio, and his background is "new media" and "addressing abstract social and technological ideas to mixed audiences" ... (computer) science, not so much.
> That said, I do like the idea of reducing abstraction layers, getting closer to the hardware, and using seemingly-strange physics for what it's worth. I'm just very skeptical of his framing of it as something which could make everything 1000x faster overnight.
> I remember reading a book years ago by "futurist" Michio Kaku called Visions. At the time I was really inspired by his "visions", which sounded very scientific. However, I think they were probably just vague, well, visions. This writing strikes me as similar.
