The patriarchs of modern science including Galileo, Kepler and Newton adopted the Pythagorean ideal of a geometrical explanation for universal phenomena, according to Gleiser. In the 20th century, scientists such as Schrodinger and Heisenberg continued the search for this "theory of everything," which is pursued today by superstring theorists, he said.
The research aiming to discover this "final theory" is misguided, Gleiser said, because such a theory can never be verified. Although scientists can develop a theory that incorporates all presently known phenomena, their scope of knowledge is limited by the range of current instruments and observations. Other phenomena that are not yet detectable may disprove the theory, Gleiser said.
"As soon as you accept an absolute explanation, you can't compare it to anything," he said. "You cannot empirically prove what you're saying, because you can't move outside of it. You may think you have a final formulation, but then somebody comes with a new tool, and you open a new window."
Science and philosophy's inclination to search for an all-encompassing theory stems from the influence of monotheism in Western culture, according to Gleiser. As a result, scientists apply the desire for universal order to the empirical tradition, hoping to prove theories that are simple and wide-reaching, he said.
"Really, in science, the way we think about everything is through empirical evidence," Gleiser said in an interview with The Dartmouth. "What is the empirical evidence for this final theory? Well, none."
Rather than focusing scientific exploration on the possibility of a simple theory that explains everything, scientists and philosophers should acknowledge that asymmetry and accident are necessary to creation, according to Gleiser.
"The main theme of the book is that science and philosophy have been looking or courting the wrong muse," Gleiser said in the interview. "Instead of looking for this perfect, old-fashioned aesthetic of science called beauty, why not look at the imperfect?"
The imperfection of genetic reproduction, for example, results in mutation that enables life forms to survive disaster, Gleiser said. The accidental development of a viable environment on planet Earth suggests that the existence of intelligent life is rare and miraculous, he said.
"It is precisely because there is no grand plan, precisely because we are the product of accidents, that we are so special," Gleiser said in the interview.
The argument for the impossibility of the "Theory of Everything" will directly affect the work of only a small number of scientists, according to Gleiser. "A Tear at the Edge of Creation" directly contradicts the aim of physicists attempting to unify quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity, he said.
"Even the guys who want to keep working with superstring theory at least they're going to start thinking a little more critically about what they're doing," Gleiser said in the interview.
The rarity of intelligent life and the "beauty" of asymmetry already glorified in modern and postmodern art and literature supports a new kind of anthropocentrism, according to Gleiser.
"We have a new mission to be the guardians of life, and not the destroyers," Gleiser said. "It's definitely empowering. If there is hope for humanity, it is for finding a common goal."
