III The Mechanical Interpretation of the Universe

The Mechanical Interpretation of the Univers After prolonged deliberations, it has been established in the world of science that the law of causation is not the absolute reality it was understood to be in the 19th century. (Over the last fifty years a number of authoritative books have been published which support this theory). The traveller in science has returned to his point of departure: the system of this world is not functioning because of the chance existence of the law of cause and effect, but because there is a conscious mind operating it at will. The reasoning of science has come full circle, leaving the field to religion to offer an account of reality. Let us examine the theory that twenty billion years ago, the universe with all its suns, stars and planets as we know them did not exist, and that space was scattered over with matter, not in solid form, but in the form of basic particles—electrons and protons. At that time matter was static and in perfect equilibrium. From the mathematical viewpoint, this balance was such that any disturbance whatsoever, no matter how slight, was bound to affect it in its entirety and was also bound to go on increasing. If we concede the initial disturbance, we can fall in with the mathematicians’ view that all other subsequent events are explainable by mathematics. The theorists liken the disturbance in the ‘cloud’ of matter to the churning up of a tub of water by a human hand. But, in the peace and quiet of the universe, who or what brought about this disturbance? Despite the fact that nothing whatever is known about this, the assumption has gained ground that such an event did take place, that the disturbance went on and on increasing, that, as a result, matter began to collect at isolated points and that it is these collections of matter which are now known severally as stars, planets and meteors. This is one explanation of the universe given by science. But what a poor, flimsy explanation it is! Scientists themselves do not feel that it carries any great conviction. Though claiming to have discovered the first cause of the universe, to which it gives the name of chance, it cannot say who or what caused the first motion in the universe. And that is its greatest weakness. The question is, when there was