Science usually feels like an unstoppable steamroller. Every week, there’s a new headline about a quantum breakthrough or a gene-editing miracle that makes it seem like we’re just a few years away from solving the entire universe. But Marcus du Sautoy’s The Great Unknown takes a massive step back. It asks the uncomfortable question: Is there a ceiling? Are there things that the human brain, or even the laws of physics, simply won’t let us understand?
Du Sautoy is a mathematician at Oxford. He’s spent his life looking at patterns. Honestly, he’s one of the few people who can talk about chaos theory and the edge of the universe without sounding like a textbook. In this book, he uses a "Seven Edges" framework to look at the boundaries of knowledge. It’s not just about what we don't know yet. It’s about what is fundamentally unknowable.
📖 Related: Finding the Person Behind the Number: How a Free Reverse Phone Directory With Name Actually Works
The Dice and the Predictability Myth
Most people think that if we just had a big enough computer, we could predict everything. If you knew the exact position of every atom in a pair of dice and the exact force of the throw, you’d know the outcome, right? Du Sautoy digs into why that’s basically a lie. Even in classical physics, something called "deterministic chaos" ruins the party.
Think about the weather. It’s the classic example. Because of the butterfly effect—a term that gets thrown around way too much but is actually mathematically terrifying—tiny errors in our initial data grow exponentially. If your measurement of the wind speed is off by 0.000001%, your three-week forecast is garbage. Du Sautoy points out that this isn't a failure of our satellites. It’s a mathematical property of the system itself. We are capped.
Then he pushes into the subatomic. This is where The Great Unknown gets really trippy. In the world of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle isn't a suggestion. It’s a hard rule. You cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. Not because your microscope is bad, but because the universe doesn't allow that information to exist simultaneously. It’s a literal "No Entry" sign for human logic.
Why We Can't See the Big Bang
One of the most fascinating parts of the book deals with the "horizon" of the universe. We often hear about the Big Bang like it’s something we can just point a telescope at and watch. But du Sautoy explains that there is a wall of fire—the Cosmic Microwave Background. Before a certain point in the early universe, everything was so hot and dense that light couldn't even move. It was just a thick soup of particles.
We can't see past that.
Unless we find a way to use gravity waves or neutrinos to "see" (which we are trying to do with projects like LIGO), that first 380,000 years of the universe's life might stay a permanent mystery. It’s a physical barrier. It makes you realize how small our "observable" window really is.
The Consciousness Problem
If the edge of the universe is too far away, the inside of our own heads is too close. Du Sautoy tackles the "Hard Problem of Consciousness." This is the part of the book where he talks to neuroscientists like Christof Koch. They’re trying to find the "neural correlates of consciousness"—the specific bits of brain meat that make you feel like you.
But here’s the kicker: even if we map every neuron, does that explain the feeling of the color red? Or the smell of coffee?
Du Sautoy is remarkably honest here. He admits that we might never have a "theory of everything" for the soul. We can see the electrical signals, but the subjective experience might be a private room that science can't break into. It’s a bit humbling. You’ve got this 1.4kg lump of gray matter trying to understand itself, and it might be like a tongue trying to taste itself. It just doesn't work.
Math is the Language, but the Language has Holes
You’d expect a mathematician to say that math can solve everything. But du Sautoy brings up Kurt Gödel. In the 1930s, Gödel basically broke mathematics. He proved his "Incompleteness Theorems," which essentially say that in any logical system, there are statements that are true but can never be proven true within that system.
This is huge for the premise of The Great Unknown.
It means that even in the most "perfect" language we have—mathematics—there are inherent gaps. There are "unprovable truths." If the foundation of our logic is incomplete, then our understanding of the physical world built on that logic must also have holes. Du Sautoy uses this to argue that science isn't a circle we are close to finishing. It’s more like a fractal. The more you zoom in, the more complexity appears.
What People Get Wrong About Scientific Progress
A lot of readers go into books like this expecting a "God of the Gaps" argument—the idea that because we don't know something, a supernatural force must be doing it. Du Sautoy avoids that trap. He isn't saying "we don't know, therefore magic." He’s saying "we don't know, and here is the mathematical reason why we might never know."
- The "Final Theory" Delusion: Many people think we are close to a "Theory of Everything" that unites gravity and quantum mechanics. Du Sautoy suggests that even if we find that equation, the complexity of how that equation plays out in the real world (chaos) will still leave us in the dark about the future.
- The Computing Fallacy: There’s a belief that AI will solve these unknowns. But AI is bound by the same laws of physics and logic. If a problem is "computationally irreducible," no amount of silicon is going to crunch through it.
- The Infinite Universe: We don't actually know if the universe is infinite. If it is, then the "unknown" isn't just large—it’s literally bottomless.
Taking Action: How to Live with the Unknown
Reading The Great Unknown shouldn't make you feel hopeless. It should change how you process information. In a world of "fake news" and "absolute certainties," realizing that the smartest people on Earth accept fundamental limits is actually quite liberating.
Embrace the "I Don't Know"
Start looking at scientific "facts" as "the best models we have right now." When you hear a weather report or an economic prediction, remember the "Edge of Chaos" du Sautoy describes. Understand that some systems are inherently unpredictable.
Focus on Process, Not Just Results
Since some ends are unreachable, the value shifts to the journey. Du Sautoy’s deep dives into the Large Hadron Collider or the way we measure time show that the attempt to know is where the real human achievement lies.
Audit Your Information Sources
Be wary of any "expert" who claims absolute certainty about complex systems (the climate, the brain, the future of AI). True expertise, as du Sautoy demonstrates, usually comes with a healthy dose of "we have no idea how this part works."
Explore the Limits Yourself
If you’re interested in the intersection of math and philosophy, look into the specific researchers du Sautoy mentions. Check out the work of Max Tegmark on the mathematical universe or the consciousness studies of Giulio Tononi.
The most important takeaway from the book is that the unknown isn't a failure. It’s the frontier. If we knew everything, curiosity would die. The fact that there are "known unknowns" and "unknowable unknowns" means that the human story doesn't have an expiration date. There will always be something else to wonder about.
To dive deeper, the best step is to stop looking for summaries and start looking at the "edges" yourself. Pick one of du Sautoy’s seven edges—whether it’s the vacuum of space or the nature of time—and look at the most recent peer-reviewed papers on the "boundaries" of that field. You'll find that the more we learn, the more the "Great Unknown" actually expands. It's a beautiful, infinite puzzle.
Check the archives of the Royal Institution for du Sautoy’s lectures on these topics to see the visual representations of the math he discusses in the book. It makes the abstract concepts of Gödel and Heisenberg much more "real" when you see them plotted out.