Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $4.95 shipping
A Tear at the Edge of Creation: A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe Paperback – August 6, 2013
"Neverworld Wake" by Marisha Pessl
Read the absorbing new psychological suspense thriller from acclaimed New York Times bestselling author Marisha Pessl. Learn more
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
"Peppered with personal anecdotes and wisdom from one of the science's most eloquent statesmen, this sweeping exploration of the imperfections at the heart of existence culminates in a hopeful message for humanity's self-fulfilling purpose in an otherwise meaningless universe."-- "Seed Magazine"
“This fascinating account reminds us . . . we may be playing for all the marbles.” (Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet)
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Despite the fact that Gleiser abandoned his search for a unified theory, he hopes that science will someday discover it. As for me, such a theory will not be expressed as a formula, an equation, or a group of equations, but it will be revealed as a process instead. In my view, the current so-called laws of nature that are expressed as equations found in science books only describe the behaviors of systems we can measure, and not the underlying processes through which those laws emerge (refer to Erik Verlinde's theory of entropic gravity and inertia). Science won't uncover what the underlying processes are until scientists abandon the reductionist paradigm that has dominated Western thought since Newton and Laplace. Although Gleiser doesn't seem quite ready to abandon reductionism himself, I suspect he might reach that point some day.
Gleiser correctly concludes that the field of cosmology is in a shambles, quoting Leonard Susskind, "We could be wrong about cosmology for the next thousand years. Deeply wrong." I also agree with Gleiser that the probability of intelligent life emerging anywhere is extremely small and so we should consider ourselves to be effectively cut off from any other intelligent life that may exist "out there." Hence, the human species is very special so we should be making more of an effort in caring for each other and our planet. This is one of the most important points he made in the book.
The book is organized in 56 rather short chapters in five main sections, followed by an epilogue. Some other reviews of this book complain there is nothing new to be found in these chapters. I disagree. While it is true that the author doesn't offer any radically new theory that explains everything, he does a pretty good job of banishing the myth that science is getting close to coming up with such a theory and gives very good reasons why science is completely missing the mark.
I would recommend A Tear in the Edge of Creation, although I prefer Gleiser's other book, The Island of Knowledge, better. I didn't give this book five stars because he spent a bit too much time explaining orthodox science, which at times made him seem more like an apologist than a critic of orthodoxy. But it was worthwhile reading nonetheless.
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.
Most recent customer reviews
The downside here is that these types of physicist-as-poet books are getting a little too...Read more