"And therefore...these things likewise had a birth; for things
which are of mortal body could not for an infinite time back...
have been able to set at naught the puissant strength of
immeasurable age."--LUCRETIUS, _De Rerum Natura._
"O fearful meditation! Where, alack! Shall Time's best jewel
from Time's chest lie hid?" --SHAKESPEARE.
IN the material universe we find presented to our senses a
physical development continually progressing, extending to all,
even the most minute, material configurations. Some fundamental
distinctions existing between this development as apparent in the
organic and the inorganic systems of the present day are referred
to elsewhere in this volume.[2] In the present essay, these
systems as having a common origin and common ending, are merged
in the same consideration as to the nature of the origin of
material systems in general. This present essay is occupied by
the consideration of the necessity of limiting material
interactions in past time. The speculation originated in the
difficulties which present themselves when we ascribe to these
interactions infinite duration in the past. These difficulties
first claim our consideration.
[1] Proc. Royal Dublin Soc., vol. vii., Part V, 1892.
[2] _The Abundance of Life._
288
Accepting the hypothesis of Kant and Laplace in its widest
extension, we are referred to a primitive condition of wide
material diffusion, and necessarily too of material instability.
The hypothesis is, in fact, based upon this material instability.
We may pursue the sequence of events assumed in this hypothesis
into the future, and into the past.
In the future we find finality to progress clearly indicated. The
hypothesis points to a time when there will be no more
progressive change but a mere sequence of unfruitful events, such
as the eternal uniform motion of a mass of matter no longer
gaining or losing heat in an ether possessed of a uniform
distribution of energy in all its parts. Or, again, if the ether
absorb the energy of material motion, this vast and dark
aggregation eternally poised and at rest within it. The action is
transferred to the subtle parts of the ether which suffer none of
the energy to degrade. This is, physically, a thinkable future.
Our minds suggest no change, and demand none. More than this,
change is unthinkable according to our present ideas of energy.
Of progress there is an end.
This finality _â parte post_ is instructive. Abstract
considerations, based on geometrical or analytical illustrations,
question the finiteness of some physical developments. Thus our
sun may require eternal time to attain the temperature of the
ether around it, the approach to this condition being assumed to
be asymptotic in
289
character. But consider the legitimate _reductio ad absurdum_ of
an ember raked from a fire 1000 years ago. Is it not yet cooled
down to the constant temperature of its surroundings? And we may
evidently increase the time a million-fold if we please. It
appears as if we must regard eternity as outliving every
progressive change, For there is no convergence or enfeeblement
of time. The ever-flowing present moves no differently for the
occurrence of the mightiest or the most insignificant events. And
even if we say that time is only the attendant upon events, yet
this attendant waits patiently for the end, however long
deferred.
Does the essentially material hypothesis of Kant and Laplace
account for an infinite past as thinkably as it accounts for the
infinite future? As this hypothesis is based upon material
instability the question resolves itself into this:-- Is the
assumption of an infinitely prolonged past instability a probable
or possible account of the past? There are, it appears to me,
great difficulties involved in accepting the hypothesis of
infinitely prolonged material instability. I will refer here to
three principal objections. The first may be called a
metaphysical objection; the second is partly metaphysical and
partly physical, the third may be considered a physical
objection, as it is involved directly in the phenomena presented
by our universe.
The metaphysical objection must have presented itself to every
one who has considered the question. It may
290
be put thus:--If present events are merely one stage in an
infinite progress, why is not the present stage long ago passed
over? We are evidently at liberty to push back any stage of
progress to as remote a period as we like by putting back first
the one before this and next the stage preceding this, and so on,
for, by hypothesis, there is no beginning to the progress.
Thus, the sum of passing events constituting the present universe
should long ago have been accomplished and passed away. If we
consider alternative hypotheses not involving this difficulty, we
are at once struck by the fact that the future of material
development is free of the objection. For the eternity of
unprogressive events involved in the future on Kant's hypothesis,
is not only thinkable, but any change is, as observed,
irreconcilable with our ideas of energy. As in the future so in
the past we look to a cessation to progress. But as we believe
the activity of the present universe must in some form have
existed all along, the only refuge in the past is to imagine an
active but unprogressive eternity, the unprogressive activity at
some period becoming a progressive activity--that progressive
activity of which we are spectators. To the unprogressive
activity there was no beginning; in fact, beginning is as
unthinkable and uncalled for to the unprogressive activity of the
past as ending is to the unprogressive activity of the future,
when all developmental actions shall have ceased. There is no
beginning or ending to the activity of the universe.
291
There is beginning and ending to present progressive activity.
Looking through the realm of nature we seek beginning and ending,
but "passing through nature to eternity" we find neither. Both
are justified; the questioning of the ancient poet regarding the
past, and of the modern regarding the future, quoted at the head
of this essay.
The next objection, which is in part metaphysical, is founded on
the difficulty of ascribing any ultimate reality or potency to
forces diminishing through eternal time. Thus, against the
assumption that our universe is the result of material
aggregation progressing over eternal time, which involves the
primitive infinite separation of the particles, we may ask, what
force can have acted between particles sundered by infinite
distance? The gravitational force falling off as the square of
the distance, must vanish at infinity if we mean what we say when
we ascribe infinite separation to them. Their condition is then
one of neutral stability, a finite movement of the particles
neither increasing nor diminishing interaction. They had then
remained eternally in their separated condition, there being no
cause to render such condition finite. The difficulty involved
here appears to me of the same nature as the difficulty of
ascribing any residual heat to the sun after eternal time has
elapsed. In both cases we are bound to prolong the time, from our
very idea of time, till progress is no more, when in the one case
we can imagine no mutual approximation of the
292
particles, in the other no further cooling of the body. However,
I will riot dwell further upon this objection, as it does not, I
believe, present itself with equal force to every mind. A reason
less open to dispute, as being less subjective, against the
aggregation of infinitely remote particles as the origin of our
universe, is contained in the physical objection.
In this objection we consider that the appearance presented by
our universe negatives the hypothesis of infinitely prolonged
aggregation. We base this negation upon the appearance of
simultaneity ~ presented by the heavens, contending that this
simultaneity is contrary to what we would expect to find in the
case of particles gathered from infinitely remote distances.
Whether these particles were endowed with relative motions or not
is unimportant to the consideration. In what respects do the
phenomena of our universe present the appearance of simultaneous
phenomena? We must remember that the suns in space are as fires
which brighten only for a moment and are then extinguished. It is
in this sense we must regard the longest burning of the stars.
Whether just lit or just expiring counts little in eternity. The
light and heat of the star is being absorbed by the ether of
space as effectually and rapidly as the ocean swallows the ripple
from the wings of an expiring insect. Sir William Herschel says
of the galaxy of the milky way:-- "We do not know the rate of
progress of this mysterious chronometer, but it is nevertheless
certain that it cannot
293
last for ever, and its past duration cannot be infinite." We do
not know, indeed, the rate of progress of the chronometer, but if
the dial be one divided into eternal durations the consummation
of any finite physical change represents such a movement of the
hand as is accomplished in a single vibration of the balance
wheel.
Hence we must regard the hosts of glittering stars as a
conflagration that has been simultaneously lighted up in the
heavens. The enormous (to our ideas) thermal energy of the stars
resembles the scintillation of iron dust in a jar of oxygen when
a pinch of the dust is thrown in. Although some particles be
burnt up before others become alight, and some linger yet a
little longer than the others, in our day's work the
scintillation of the iron dust is the work of a single instant,
and so in the long night of eternity the scintillation of the
mightiest suns of space is over in a moment. A little longer,
indeed, in duration than the life which stirs a moment in
response to the diffusion of the energy, but only very little. So
must an Eternal Being regard the scintillation of the stars and
the periodic vibration of life in our geological time and the
most enduring efforts of thought. The latter indeed are no more
lasting than
"... the labour of ants In the light of a million million of
suns."
But the myriad suns themselves, with their generations, are the
momentary gleam of lights for ever after extinguished.
294
Again, science suggests that the present process of material
aggregation is not finished, and possibly will only be when it
prevails universally. Hence the very distribution of the stars,
as we observe them, as isolated aggregations, indicates a
development which in the infinite duration must be regarded as
equally advanced in all parts of stellar space and essentially a
simultaneous phenomenon. For were we spectators of a system in
which any very great difference of age prevailed, this very great
difference would be attended by some such appearance as the
following:--
The aupearance of but one star, other generations being long
extinct or no others yet come into being; or, perhaps, a faint
nebulous wreath of aggregating matter somewhere solitary in the
heavens; or no sign of matter beyond our system, either because
ungathered or long passed away into darkness.[1]
Some such appearances were to be expected had the aggregation of
matter depended solely on chance encounters of particles
scattered through infinite space.
For as, by hypothesis, the aggregation occupies an infinite time
in consummation it is nearly a certainty that each particle
encountered after immeasurable time, and then for the first time
endowed with actual gravitational potential energy, would have
long expended this energy
[1] It is interesting to reflect upon the effect which an entire
absence of luminaries outside our solar system would have had
upon the views of our philosophers and upon our outlook on life.
295
before another particle was gathered. But the fact that so many
fires which we know to be of brief duration are scattered through
a region of space, and the fact of a configuration which we
believe to be a transitory ore, suggest their simultaneous
aggregation here and there. And in the nebulous wreaths situated
amidst the stars there is evidence that these actually originated
where they now are, for in such no relative motion, I believe,
has as yet been detected by the spectroscope. All this, too, is
in keeping with the nebular hypothesis of Kant and Laplace so
long as this does not assume a primitive infinite dispersion of
matter, but the gathering of matter from finite distances first
into nebulous patches which aggregating with each other have
given rise to our system of stars. But if we extend this
hypothesis throughout an infinite past by the supposition of
aggregation of infinitely remote particles we replace the
simultaneous approach required in order to accotnt for the
simultaneous phenomena visible in the heavens, by a succession of
aggregative events, by hypothesis at intervals of nearly infinite
duration, when the events of the universe had consisted of fitful
gleams lighted after eternities of time and extinguished for yet
other eternities.
Finally, if we seek to replace the eternal instability involved
in Kant's hypothesis when extended over an infinite past, by any
hypothesis of material stability, we at once find ourselves in
the difficulty that from the known properties of matter such
stability must have been
296
permanent if ever existent, which is contrary to fact. Thus the
kinetic inertia expressed in Newton's first law of motion might
well be supposed to secure equilibrium with material attraction,
but if primevally diffused matter had ever thus been held in
equilibrium it must have remained so, or it was maintained so
imperfectly, which brings us back to endless evolution.
On these grounds I contend that the present gravitational
properties of matter cannot be supposed to have acted for all
past duration. Universal equilibrium of gravitating particles
would have been indestructible by internal causes. Perpetual
instability or evolution is alike unthinkable and contrary to the
phenomena of the universe of which we are cognisant. We therefore
turn from gravitating matter as affording no rational account of
the past. We do so of necessity, however much we feel our
ignorance of the nature of the unknown actions to which we have
recourse.
A prematerial condition of the universe was, we assume, a
condition in which uniformity as regards the average distribution
of energy in space prevailed, but neterogeneity and instability
were possible. The realization of that possibility was the
beginning we seek, and we today are witnesses of the train of
events involved in the breakdown of an eternal past equilibrium.
We are witnesses on this hypothesis, of a catastrophe possibly
confined to certain regions of space, but which is, to the
motions and configurations concerned, absolutely unique,
reversible to
297
its former condition of potential by no process of which we can
have any conception.
Our speculation is that we, as spectators of evolution, are
witnessing the interaction of forces which have not always been
acting. A prematerial state of the universe was one of unfruitful
motions, that is, motions unattended by progressing changes, in
our region of the ether. How extended we cannot say; the nature
of the motions we know not; but the kinetic entities differed
from matter in the one important particular of not possessing
gravitational attraction. Such kinetic configurations we cannot
consider to be matter. It was _possible_ to construct matter by
their summation or linkage as the configuration of the crystal is
possible in the clear supersaturated liquid.
Duration in an ether filled with such motions would pass in a
succession of mere unfruitful events; as duration, we may
imagine, even now passes in parts of the ether similar to our
own. An endless (it may be) succession of unprogressive,
fruitless events. But at one moment in the infinite duration the
requisite configuration of the elementary motions is attained;
solely by the one chance disposition the stability of all must
go, spreading from the fateful point.
Possibly the material segregation was confined to one part of
space, the elementary motions condensing upon transformation, and
so impoverishing the ether around till the action ceased. Again
in the same sense as the
298
stars are simultaneous, so also they may be regarded as uniform
in size, for the difference in magnitude might have been anything
we please to imagine, if at the same time we ascribe sufficient
distance sundering great and small. So, too;, will a dilute
solution of acetate of soda build a crystal at one point, and the
impoverishment of the medium checking the growth in this region,
another centre will begin at the furthest extremities of the
first crystal till the liquid is filled with loose feathery
aggregations comparable in size with one another. In a similar
way the crystallizing out of matter may have given rise, not to a
uniform nebula in space, but to detached nebula, approximately of
equal mass, from which ultimately were formed the stars.
That an all-knowing Being might have foretold the ultimate event
at any preceding period by observing the motions of the parts
then occurring, and reasoning as to the train of consequences
arising from these nations, is supposable. But considerations
arising from this involve no difficulty in ascribing to this
prematerial train of events infinite duration. For progress there
is none, and we can quite as easily conceive of some part of
space where the same Infinite Intelligence, contemplating a
similar train of unfruitful motions, finds that at no time in the
future will the equilibrium be disturbed. But where evolution is
progressing this is no longer conceivable, as being contradictory
to the very idea of progressive development. In this case
Infinite Intelligence
299
_necessarily_ finds, as the result of his contemplation, the
aggregation of matter, and the consequences arising therefrom.
The negation of so primary a material property as gravitation to
these primitive motions of (or in) the ether, probably involves
the negation of many properties we find associated with matter.
Possibly the quality of inertia, equally primary, is involved
with that of gravitation, and we may suppose that these two
properties so intimately associated in determining the motions of
bodies in space were conferred upon the primitive motions as
crystallographic attraction and rigidity are first conferred upon
the solid growing from the supersaturated liquid. But in some
degree less speculative is the supposition that the new order of
motions involved the transformation of much energy into the form
of heat vibrations; so that the newly generated matter, like the
newly formed crystal, began its existence in a medium richly fed
with thermal radiant energy. We may consider that the thermal
conditions were such as would account for a primitive
dissociation of the elements. And, again, we recall how the
physicist finds his estimate of the energy involved in mere
gravitational aggregation inadequate to afford explanation of
past solar heat. It is supposable, on such a hypothesis as we
have been dwelling on, that the entire subsequent gravitational
condensation and conversion of material potential energy, dating
from the first formation of matter to the stage of star
formation
300
may be insignificant in amount compared with the conversion of
etherial energy attending the crystallizing out of matter from
the primitive motions. And thus possibly the conditions then
obtaining involved a progressively increasing complexity of
material structure the genesis of the elements, from an
infra-hydrogen possessing the simplest material configuration,
resulting ultimately in such self-luminous nebula as we yet see
in the heavens.
The late James Croll, in his _Stellar Evolution_, finds objections
to an eternal evolution, one of which is similar to the
"metaphysical" objection urged in this paper. His way out of the
difficulty is in the speculation that our stellar system
originated by the collision of two masses endowed with relative
motion, eternal in past duration, their meeting ushering in the
dawn of evolution. However, the state of aggregation here
assumed, from the known laws of matter and from analogy, calls
for explanation as probably the result of prior diffusion, when,
of course, the difficulty is only put back, not set at rest. Nor
do I think the primitive collision in harmony with the number of
relatively stationary nebula visible in space.
The metaphysical objection is, I find, also urged by George
Salmon, late Provost of Trinity College, in favour of the
creation of the universe.--(_Sermons on Agnosticism_.)