The nature of the physical worldEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The nature of the physical world
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Physics -- Philosophy; Science -- Philosophy
But the difficulty of an infinite past is appalling. It is
inconceivable that we are the heirs of an infinite time of preparation;
it is not less inconceivable that there was once a moment with no
moment preceding it.
This dilemma of the beginning of time would worry us more were it not
shut out by another overwhelming difficulty lying between us and the
infinite past. We have been studying the running-down of the universe;
if our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the
present day we must place the winding up of the universe.
[Pg 84]
Travelling backwards into the past we find a world with more and more
organisation. If there is no barrier to stop us earlier we must reach
a moment when the energy of the world was wholly organised with none
of the random element in it. It is impossible to go back any further
under the present system of natural law. I do not think the phrase
“wholly organised” begs the question. The organisation we are concerned
with is exactly definable, and there is a limit at which it becomes
perfect. There is not an infinite series of states of higher and still
higher organisation; nor, I think, is the limit one which is ultimately
approached more and more slowly. Complete organisation does not tend to
be more immune from loss than incomplete organisation.
There is no doubt that the scheme of physics as it has stood for the
last three-quarters of a century postulates a date at which either the
entities of the universe were created in a state of high organisation,
or pre-existing entities were endowed with that organisation which
they have been squandering ever since. Moreover, this organisation is
admittedly the antithesis of chance. It is something which could not
occur fortuitously.
This has long been used as an argument against a too aggressive
materialism. It has been quoted as scientific proof of the intervention
of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from to-day. But I am
not advocating that we drew any hasty conclusions from it. Scientists
and theologians alike must regard as somewhat crude the naïve
theological doctrine which (suitably disguised) is at present to be
found in every textbook of thermodynamics, namely that some billions
of years ago God wound up the material universe and has left it to
chance ever since. This should be regarded as the working-hypothesis
[Pg 85]
of thermodynamics rather than its declaration of faith. It is one of
those conclusions from which we can see no logical escape—only it
suffers from the drawback that it is incredible. As a scientist I
simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with
a bang; unscientifically I feel equally unwilling to accept the implied
discontinuity in the divine nature. But I can make no suggestion to
evade the deadlock.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account