This does not imply any lowering of the standards or ideals of science; it implies merely a growing conviction that the ultimate realities of the universe are at present quite beyond the reach of science, and may be—and probably are—for ever beyond the comprehension of the human mind. It is _à priori_ probable that only the artist can understand the full significance of the picture he has painted, and that this will remain for ever impossible for a few specks of paint on the canvas. It is for this kind of reason that, when, as in Chapter II, we try to discuss the ultimate structure of the atom, we are driven to speak in terms of similes, metaphors, and parables. There is no need even to worry overmuch about apparent contradictions. The higher unity of ultimate reality must no doubt reconcile them all, although it remains to be seen whether this higher unity is within our comprehension or not. In the meantime a contradiction worries us about as much as an unexplained fact, but hardly more; it may or may not disappear in the progress of science. If some such train of thought may be applied to our efforts to understand the most minute processes of the universe (and it is the common everyday train of thought of those who are working in this field), then it must surely be still more applicable to our efforts to understand the universe as a whole. Phenomena come to us disguised in their frameworks of time and space; they are messages in cypher of which we shall not understand the ultimate significance until we have discovered how to decode them out of their space-time wrappings. Whatever may be thought about our final ability to decode the difficult messages we have recently received about the ultimate structure of the minutest parts of matter, it seems natural that we should feel some apprehension with regard to those about the structure of the universe as a whole, and particularly those about its beginnings and endings. Often enough the message itself may help us to discover the code in which it reaches us—with sufficient skill we can often do this—but we are now speaking of problems as to when, by whom, and for what purpose, the code was devised. There is no reason why a code message should throw any light on this. The astronomer must leave the problem at this stage. The message of astronomy is of obvious concern to philosophy, to religion and to humanity in general, but it is not the business of the astronomer to decode it. The observing astronomer watches and records the dots and dashes of the needle which delivers the message, the theoretical astronomer translates these into words—and according as they are found to form known consistent words or not, it is known whether he has done his job well or ill—but it is for others to try to understand and explain the ultimate decoded meaning of the words he writes down. LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE