A crash course on our boundlessly bizarre universe

> According to the review the author proposes that there is no essence to things but only relations, but doesn't explain his theory completely.

As someone who loves science popularisers and reads a lot of them, that seems consistent with my experience of The order of time—which I couldn't even finish.

On the other hand, take my perspective with a grain of salt: I was also very much turned off by Hawking and Mlodinow's The grand design, which I think is otherwise very well received. I love Sean Carroll and Brian Greene as popularisers of what can be very inaccessible physics. (Oh, and it was a long time ago, but I loved Lederman's The God particle, much as he regretted his own naming later.)

That’s also the gist of the Wolfram Physics Project: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-h...

> It might be just me, but I think reading hard sci-fi is much more educational and memorable, not to mention entertaining, than non fiction.

Memorable and entertaining seem very likely, but I think one has to be extremely careful with one's sci-fi that what one remembers is real science rather than just what makes for good fiction—there's often a tension, and even a very scientifically literate author can, and probably should, opt for the one that makes for good fiction.

even hard sci-fi is going to make concessions for the sake of the story. I really don't understand how something that has no obligation to be factual can be more educational..

I’m sure you’re not alone in that, but I recommend giving non-fiction a chance too! There’s some great stuff out there, sometimes as entertaining and memorable as fiction.

Carlo Rovelli (whose new book is reviewed here) is well worth a try; his writing is really poetic and striking.

Another really interesting kind of semi-fictionalised history I recommend is Francis Spufford’s Red Plenty.

Yeah. I was like who thought this was a great idea.