[363849473754]

Depends what “non-expert” means. Because I actually think even if you have an undergraduate knowledge in mathematics then you still may not be able to follow some of his arguments unless you specifically studied mathematical logic. I have a more advanced background in math but not in logic and don’t understand some of his arguments. He sometimes makes loose statements without proof or without providing strong background knowledge to closely follow those things if you don’t already know them. Some of the ZFC stuff I didn’t follow either, but I never really needed to know set theory to the extent Aaronson uses it. I think the statement it’s quite approachable isn’t very accurate. If you want to gloss over it and still get the main idea then it’s good for that but not for rigorously understanding all the mathematical arguments without preexisting background knowledge. It’s between a pop sci book and textbook with a casual tone. It’s a fun book.

[tgflynn]

You may well be right. I haven't read that book, though I have found much of Aaronson's writing to be quite approachable. But I think your previous comment was an inaccurate way of phrasing those critiques.

[eterevsky]

Ok, I think I generally agree with your categorisation.

Personally I did study mathematical logic in the University a little bit, but it was 20 years ago and I don't think I remember much about it past what all undergraduates are taught.