IN THE BEGINNING WAS NOTHING - THEN IT EXPLODED

Somehow the scientific community has come to believe that it has solved the great mysteries of the universe. It all started up with a big bang, expanded to whatever state it is in now, depending on which part of the universe you are in, and may or may not return to a dot not disimilar to the original dot from whence it came. There are available detailed descriptions of the state of the universe from the first few seconds onward. Much of this information is available courtesy of modern astronomical techniques but it is also underpinned by a happy marriage with Einstein's Theory of Relativity in its various forms. The easier part of this theory concerns the physical makeup of the atom and its constituents. From this the nature of how matter has behaved and evolved over mind boggling distances and periods of time can be deduced.

What we mean by 'matter' has always been a problem for philosophers of science and largely taken for granted by scientists, who just get on with the job. After all, there is not much point in describing sub atomic particles if there are none. Therefore, they must exist. Descartes must be turning in his grave to discover that so little progress has been made in the rigors of scientific discipline. The circularity of 'matter is what atomic scientists analyse' is compounded by the startling discovery that whatever it is, it only accounts for 15% of the 'material' of which the universe is composed. Somewhere out there is a massive 85% of 'dark matter', or so we think, theoretically. Well, probably. Since this 'dark matter' has not yet acquired any features it is difficult to be precise about it. But we are assured it is definitely out there.

Tied into the nature of matter is the 'glue' that holds it all together - the space-time continuum. The great thing about Einstein's theory is that it enables us to add perspective and portability to matter. Traditional science has assumed a point of view which it calls 'objective', as if it is possible to detach from the process and describe it in a way valid for all observers. Einstein realised that there is always a point of view relative to the event and its components. And in describing an event both space and time have to be included as integral.

However, both space and time are concepts which imply limit. They are systems of measurements. I cannot conceive of them as not systems of measurement, whether they are curved or whatever. By their nature they measure. Now, if you can measure something it has to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Even if, like an Escher drawing, it tangles around and joins up back where it started, that still raises questions of width if not length and, of course, repetition if the journey just goes on for ever.

I am left with the inevitable questions: What is beyond the limits of the universe? What preceded the beginning of time? I have tried to imagine ways of thinking about time and space which satisfy these worries and I cannot. In my view it is fundamental to the concepts themselves that they raise these issues. So where does this leave us both philosophically and scientifically?

My view is that time and space are useless to our understanding of the nature and origins of the universe. We have not begun to make sense of what is truly going on. We do not even have more than a handful of the pieces of the jig saw. I would suggest that when about 1000 Einsteins have painstakingly worked out theories we might be a measureable amount closer - but by then we might just have run out of time (and space).

Pierre