A Tear at the Edge of Creation: A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe

As a non-physicist with an interest in the subject (though lacking the discipline to study it in detail), I have long thought that a Theory of Everything was a ridiculous concept. Humble clichés they may be, but statements like "the more you look, the more you see," and "the more you know, the more you know you don't know" seem evident in practically everything.Gleiser points out that life in the universe, especially intelligent life, is likely rare and fragile. He is not one to postulate that life naturally arise in a universe that evolves, as some other scientists have. He gives the whole notion short shrift. Nonetheless, whatever combination of conditions led from the first amino acids to self-reproducing structures, in a universe as vast as ours, those rare conditions seem likely to arise somewhere from time to time. Single cells would dominate, but over time, multi-cell organisms may arise, given enough time and change in conditions. The first cells probably changed the environment drastically over time, creating a totally different atmosphere and environment. This was both a crisis for some creatures existing under the old conditions, and an opportunity for new life forms.The same was true in a somewhat different sense with the asteroid event such as that which did in the dinosaurs' reign. Life and at least small parts of the universe evolved together in both cases (and probably countless others). Right now, human beings are quickly destroying the balance that allows us to exist here on earth. We will either use our evolved intelligence to save the day or we won't. In either case, something is likely to follow these changes...something that continues to include life. Selfishly, I hope it includes something like us, but life here has certainly had a way of surviving cataclysmic changes. Even a human-caused cataclysm is still a natural event, not unlike an asteroid collision.Intelligence may not be one of the attributes necessary for life to flourish on Earth (or another life-friendly planet), but it may be one of the necessary steps for life to begin to populate the colder and harsher areas of the cosmos. To spread like a virus, some life will have to figure out how to create life-sustaining zones in what looks to be uninhabitable places. And isn't that what life (non-intelligent and intelligent) has done on a smaller scale throughout the planet here?The age of our universe does not seem very old to me at less than 14 billion years. If we perish, there may yet be many more failed experiments--in places we would never be able to travel to or have contact with--before intelligent life gets enough purchase to take hold not only on its birth planet, but in other places modified to allow its spread.I believe we are talking deep, deep time here. Isn't time going to continue to flow as long as the universe continues to be? Isn't it possible that 13.75 billion years will become but a tiny fraction of the age of universe, a universe that only began teaming with "rational" life at the age of for example 43 billion? Of course the earth and entire solar system and galaxy we live in will be long gone by then, but life in forms we cannot even imagine (carbon-silicone combines??) could conceivably negotiate new territory. For me, it seems so obvious that the universe is still a baby, but I say this of from a relatively unschooled place. None of this musing proves anything about life being a natural byproduct of an existing universe, but to me if "feels" as if it is, especially given how quickly the first forms arise when conditions allow.The other comment has to do with Oneness. Gleiser's arguments are compelling that creation is a result of asymmetries and imbalances. I get that point, but I don't understand why there would have to be an underlying theory of everything in order to have a sense of Oneness. We all come from stardust, and subatomic particles make up people, cheese, rocks, trees, planets, gas and galaxy clusters. That makes it easy to relate to absolutely everything as part of me and me it. Further, I see Oneness in quantum entanglement.The previous paragraphs of my own thoughts (in response to Gleiser's view that we may well be it as far as intelligent, self-aware life forms in the universe) are not meant to take away from the brilliant ideas Gleiser shares about for example asymmetries being the basis of so much complexity. Certainly he is right that there is no evidence of a direct line connecting life with intelligent life. I think I also share his spirituality. There is no theology out there that I have seen that begins to rival the magic and mystery of reality. His dissection of the Anthropic Principal is masterful. When I lost my faith in Santa Claus's cousin (God), I initially gravitated toward the AP. After all, people smarter than me were suggesting it might have merit and validity, and as a seeker I was still looking for a rational way to meld science and religion. But it still seemed a bit contrived. Gleiser takes it apart in an elegant way, while at the same time being as respectful as possible to what is really a circular and untestable idea.

Ever more books on science are being published these days for the lay reader. This is a blessing, because it allows those of us who are not proficient in advanced mathematics to appreciate new perspectives that are emerging from the most recent scientific research. Perhaps more important still is that such books allow broader groups of readers to consider the impact of new theories on the myths of the past as well as upon our current set of beliefs. In my mind it is crucial that the widely held beliefs of human societies should remain informed and current rather than rigidly stuck alongside the beliefs of past generations.The Tear at the Edge of Creation by Marcelo Gleiser is a wonderful contribution to this category of non-fiction. The author is clear and direct in his explanation of current theory from physics to biology and he writes beautifully. In addition in this book he has provided an insightful philosophical perspective as well. He presents two serious themes: The first is that there is no grand design or purpose to the universe. And the second is that science has its own limitations; the search for a `final theory' is based upon a Platonic belief (or alternatively upon monotheistic religion which was influenced by neo-Platonic thought) that is unfounded. Both of these themes resonate with me due to the fact I have written about them in a book of my own, The Bridge, in chapters one and two respectively. I therefore found myself considering and comparing arguments throughout. But beyond such sweeping comparisons, Mr. Gleiser's book takes a very different trajectory. He has painstakingly laid out the evidence to demonstrate that the scientific search for a final theory, a new discovery in physics which would finally unify relativity and quantum mechanics is quite possibly chasing down a blind ally. The belief in a final theory which could explain the fundamental forces of nature is based in a belief in the symmetry of nature. Yet Gleiser argues that there is now ample evidence to suggest that the existence of matter and the presence of life on earth are possible only by virtue of asymmetry. (Hence he has shown through detailed scientific evidence what I myself presented as philosophical propositions.) The intention is not to discourage scientific research. On the contrary science has offered tremendous knowledge of the processes of nature and will continue to do so. But we should not expect that we are even close to discovering encompassing and simple models which will illuminate these processes completely. Rather, as the author says, `we can only know what we can measure.'Later in the book the author entertains the question of whether life is spread throughout the universe and whether we might find intelligent life on other planets. His argument on this topic is well presented, but a more in depth inquiry into this question is available in a recent book by Paul Davies, The Eerie Silence. In the final chapters Mr Gleiser encourages readers, whether scientists or laypersons, to abandon the view that the universe is the product of a grand design or that it is imbued with purpose. Rather we should accept that the universe itself and we in its tow are the products of chance imbalances in the workings of nature. We should not feel threatened by this knowledge but rather rejoice in it. And we should assume responsibility for preserving this chance `gift' of nature. I couldn't agree more, but I am a little disappointed that the author failed to expand upon and develop this final theme.David Hillstrom