The Secret of the Universe

The Secret of the Universe, by Nathan R. Wood, [1932], at sacred-texts.com The Secret of the Universe "God, Man and Matter" by NATHAN R. WOOD New York: F. H. Revel & Co. [1932] Scanned, proofed and formatted by John Bruno Hare at sacred-texts.com, June 2008. This text is in the public domain in the US because it was not renewed at the US Copyright Office in a timely fashion. The Secret of the Universe, by Nathan R. Wood, [1932], at sacred-texts.com [p. 7] INTRODUCTION WHEN the Hebrew Singer, marvelling at the fact of which he had no doubt, that man is visited by God, exclaimed "When I consider Thy Heavens," he was undoubtedly comparing the apparent littleness of man with the vastness of the universe of which he was conscious. The expression "Thy heavens" included for him that universe whose existence was demonstrated by the "Moon and the stars." Evidently it was a song composed at night. Like all inspired expressions it was inclusive. How much it included, the Singer certainly did not know. How vast the universe is, we even now do not know. But to-day we know its vastness far better than David did. Science bewilders us with its affirmations as to its extent. This enlargement of apprehension does but accentuate for thinking minds the wonder of it, and creates what we now often describe, borrowing Haeckel's words, as "The Riddle of the Universe." To recognize a riddle, is to postulate a solution. Finally, somewhere, somehow, there must be a whole, which resolves all parts into itself. Perhaps we should say--that is the conviction of faith, which is the last word of reason. The mind of man has been seeking ever for a statement of that Whole in terms which include all the parts, in other words asking "What is the Secret of the Universe?" For every suggestion which Philosophy has made we are grateful, for its blunders which have [p. 8] needed correction and so have helped us, as well as for its recognitions of principles and laws which abide. To that great Quest President Nathan Wood has made a contribution in this book. To me it is more than a Quest, it is a Conquest. In bulk this book is small. In reach it is as vast as the Universe. I could describe it as "The Philosophy of the Universe." The Author probably would prefer to call it "A Philosophy of the Universe." Whether "The," with its suggestion of finality, or "A," calling for further investigation, it is Philosophy, and must make an appeal to all who are seeking light on the fascinating mystery. Personally when Dr. Wood did me the honour of allowing me to peruse the manuscript, I read it with growing amazement, at the final inclusiveness of its outlook, and the clear and cogent statement of its examination of those parts which interpret the whole. The first three parts of the book are as fascinating as a Fairy Story. That perhaps is an unfortunate figure of speech as it may suggest something fanciful. I employ it rather in the sense that truth is stranger than fiction. The final part requires more careful, or shall I say slower reading, as the Author gives us a keen and penetrative analysis of the Universe. It is not the work of an introduction to give away a "secret." That must be discovered by the reader of the book. At least I do not hesitate to say here is a book, startling, challenging, scholarly, sane, courteous; and it must make its appeal to the consideration of those who are not content to drift through life taking things as they are, but desire to challenge life, not only in its passing hours, and nearest dust, but in its vastness and entirety. In this age, when Philosophy [p. 9] has really had nothing new to say for many generations, but has been satisfied with garbing in new terminology the thinking of other days, here is a book which will surely make men stop-look-and-listen. I would like to put a copy first in the hands of every theological student, and then also in the hands of every student who is endeavoring to "beat his music out." G. CAMPBELL MORGAN. The Secret of the Universe, by Nathan R. Wood, [1932], at sacred-texts.com [p. 10] [p. 11] CONTENTS PART I. THE PATTERN OF THE UNIVERSE I. THE OUTER UNIVERSE II. THE INNER UNIVERSE III. THE DEMAND OF THE UNIVERSE PART II. THE PROBLEMS OF THE UNIVERSE INTRODUCTION. THE SECRET OF ALL THINGS I. THE PROBLEM OF UNITY II. THE PROBLEM OF SPACE AND MOTION III. THE PROBLEM OF SPACE, MOTION AND TIME IV. THE PROBLEM OF RELATIVITY V. THE PROBLEM OF BEING, OR EXISTENCE VI. THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE AND PROGRESS VII. THE PROBLEM OF ETHICS, OR THE GOOD VIII. THE PROBLEM OF REALITY, OR THE TRUE IX. THE PROBLEM OF AESTHETICS, OR THE BEAUTIFUL CONCLUSION. THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE RIDDLES OF THE UNIVERSE The Secret of the Universe, by Nathan R. Wood, [1932], at sacred-texts.com [p. 12] [p. 13] PART I. THE PATTERN OF THE UNIVERSE I. THE OUTER UNIVERSE Why is the universe what it is?--Is it really a universe?--What is its structure?--The basic things--Space--Matter--Time--"Is there a universal principle?"--The Equation of the Universe--How far does the structure of the universe extend?--How the being of God was presented to us--The Data classified--What Space is--What Matter is--What Time is--The Structure of the Universe--How the cause explains the structure--How the structure confirms the cause--The vision of the universe. WHY is the universe what it is? That is the riddle of the universe. Can we ever solve it? Can we grasp it at all? Of course we cannot with human minds reach out to the ever-receding infinities of universe beyond universe of stars. Neither can we reach inward to the equal infinities of world within world in the atom. This does not need words. We know that we can never do it. We cannot grasp what it really means that a certain island universe is millions of light-years away. We cannot grasp what it means that the electron moves in its orbit around the proton in the atom a quadrillion times a second. It is no shame to us that we cannot grasp such things as these. Our minds are not geared to the infinite. If they were, could we harness them any more to the ledger, the plough, the tool-chest or the cook-stove? What would it profit to grasp the nebula and the electron, and starve or freeze? But our minds do seem [p. 14] fitted to understand. They can apparently understand the quality and meaning of things whose immensity they cannot grasp. They are evidently fitted to understand everything which can be understood. That seems somehow to be what they are for. Then can we understand the universe? Can we find why it is what it is? That surely comes first in understanding it. Can we find an organic reason in it, and see it as a whole? Some put it in this way:--"Is there a formula of the universe? And can the formula be known?" It is worth every effort to understand this force or that fact in the world around us. What then is it worth to understand the universe! Why is the physical world just what it is, and not something quite different? Could the physical world have existed in some other form and order? If it could have been wholly different, why is it what it is? Or if it had to be what it is, why did it have to be so? Is there a reason? What is the reason? It is not enough to say that all things evolved into this present form of things out of a simpler condition. For if they did evolve, why did they evolve into this order of things, and not into something quite different? That is our question. Or if they came at a creative stroke into what they now are, why was it into just this form and character and not into some other? Is this really a universe, then? That is, has it unity? Has it a structure, with a reason for the structure? For we surely do want, if we can, to see the universe as a whole. If we cannot see it all, which is a more than doubtful possibility, we can at least see what it all means. Can we see it as a universe, a genuine unity, including the world of matter and the [p. 15] world of mind? Is it such a universe, with an organic pattern and principle in it all? In other words, is there a structure of the universe, with a reason for it? What is that structure? If we had not asked these things before, modern science would drive us to ask them now. This physical universe, this vast fabric of forces, this interplay of laws and energies, why is it so precisely and accurately what it is? There must be a structure of the modern universe. And if there is such a structure, there must be a reason for it, a universal reason why it is just what it is. What is that reason? To find the structure of the physical universe, we do not need more complicated knowledge. We need to simplify. We need to use what we have. We must find the basic things, which form the universal structure. What are the basic things? Those things which lie back of all other things? Those things which are the basis of all other things, and include all other things, and exist in all other things? Those will be the basic things. They should not be very hard to find. When we have found them we shall be on our way toward understanding the riddle of the universe. We must find the basic things. Space The first one may be agreed upon without difficulty. It is Space--the basic thing in the physical universe. It is back of every other basis of the physical universe. We may have many different views about space, and many speculations. We may think of space as an outward reality, or as our way of seeing the universe. But, in any case, space comes first. Upon one thing we [p. 16] can all agree. Whatever each of us may mean by space, this is, as we all know, a space universe. What is space? Of what does it consist? We may speculate much about this. But again we can without difficulty agree on the essential thing. Space as we all know it and live in it and use it consists of three things. We call these three things three dimensions, or three directions. We name them generally length, breadth and height. Two words may be objected to nowadays, when we talk about "three dimensions." One word is "dimensions," and the other is "three." But for our simpler and basic purpose neither objection will be made. It may be suggested, and rightly, that the term "dimensions," the term most commonly used, and which therefore we are using, means measurements, and therefore implies limited distances. "Length, breadth and height," too, may be taken as limited terms. "Length" may mean the distance between two definite points, which means a limited distance. "Breadth" also may be used as a term of measurement, rather than a term of unlimited direction. "Height" also may signify a limited distance upward. These terms are not wholly unambiguous when we would signify unlimited space. It would be more unmistakably accurate to say "directions" instead of "dimensions." Space has three "independent directions," the mathematician says. Those words do not carry the possible meaning of measurement, as "dimensions" do. But it is difficult to name the three directions. Shall we call them "north," "east" and "up?" Or x, y and z? These are accurate. But people in general are not accustomed to these terms. They are [p. 17] on the contrary accustomed to saying "dimensions" when they mean unlimited "directions," and to saying "length," "breadth" and "height" when they mean the three general "directions" of unlimited space. May we not, then, use the terms to which most readers are accustomed, so accustomed that these terms are second nature to them when they think about the directions of space. But may we mean by these terms, not the limited measurements of a box, or house, or geometric figure, but the unlimited "dimensions" of free space. That is what the mathematician means by "three independent directions," and it is what the ordinary person means by the "three dimensions of space," and it is what the mathematician means when he talks about a "fourth dimension." In this sense of the terms, space as we know it and live in it and use it consists of three things. They are three dimensions,--length, breadth and height. As we have said, we may speculate about space. Mathematicians may demonstrate a fourth dimension and fifth dimension, and some profound realities may or may not reside in the demonstrations. But when we build a house we build it in three dimensions. No man in the world has ever raised a cabin or a cathedral of either more or less than three dimensions. No thinker would know how to plan a structure of more than three dimensions. Whatever the refinements, the subtleties, of space may be, it is clear that the basic space, the space of common knowledge and experience, is of three dimensions. It consists of those dimensions. It is length, breadth and height. This is the first thing in the structure of the physical universe. [p. 18] Matter What else does the universe around us tell us of the basic things? What else is the structure of the physical universe? Of what else does it consist? That too is a matter of common knowledge and experience. The man who moves about unthinking in the physical world and the man who spends restless days and sleepless nights in exploring the secrets of the physical world are at one in this. Next to space is that which fills space and embodies space, and gives to us all the phenomena of the physical universe. We call it matter. But we know now that it is primarily energy. We can agree to call it matter, if by matter we mean that form which energy takes so that we can see it, or hear it, or feel it. We mean all of that which fills and gives outward reality to space. We all of us take this for granted in all of our daily thinking and activity. What is the nature then of this which occupies space, and makes a visible, audible, tangible universe? Of what does it consist? Here again we are among things which we know. For even if we avoid hypothesis and speculation there is much which now we definitely know. Modern physics and chemistry find, first and basic in matter:--energy,--vast, unknown, unseen, a primal thing, out of which all things in the physical universe come. We may, it is true, define energy as "mass multiplied by the square of the velocity." That is the technical description of it. But that does not mean that this energy is the result of the multiplication of mass by its [p. 19] velocity. Rather the energy is itself the cause. Mass may be, and doubtless is, simply a manifestation of that energy. And the velocity is surely a result, a manifestation, of that energy. "Mass times the square of the velocity" then is not what energy is. It is the way we measure energy. We measure energy by its manifestations, of mass and velocity. Second, modern physics and chemistry find, growing out of energy, embodying energy,--motion,--that great, unceasing, unresting motion, which fills and which is the physical universe. Third, they find all those infinite complexities and variations of motion, those varying velocities, into which motion differentiates itself, and which, when they present themselves to us as waves of light, of air, of sound, we recognize as physical phenomena, light, colour, sound, heat, cold, hardness, softness, scent, moisture, dryness. They are not dependent upon our recognition or experience of them. They register themselves upon mechanical instruments as readily as upon human senses, showing that they exist apart from human beings and human perceptions. They are probably not different "kinds" of motion. They are probably, as we know that light waves and sound waves are, simply different rates of motion, or different velocities into which motion differentiates itself. We call them phenomena. We think of them in connection with our senses, because that is the way in which we become acquainted with them. But they definitely exist apart from our senses. If we remember that they are in themselves differentiations of motion, which exist apart from us, we may call them, as we know them, phenomena. This is that universe of matter or substance in which [p. 20] we are, and of which we are a part. It consists in the most literal sense of these three things,--energy, motion and phenomena. Time Is anything else basic in the physical universe? Is there anything else which is of the very structure of the universe? Yes. There is one other thing of which we can be sure. There is one other thing which every thinker agrees to recognize as an absolute basis of the physical world. That is,--Time. Whatever our view of Time may be, we regard Time as basic. In eternity everything must doubtless be timeless. But in the world nothing is timeless. Time is of the essence of everything in the physical universe. This is, by universal agreement, a time universe. When we ask what time is, and how we may resolve it into its component parts, the answer is simple. We need not speculate how far time is an outer reality, and how far it is our way of conceiving things. For whichever it is, or if, as is doubtless the case, time is both an outer reality and our way of conceiving things, the facts about time are so universal, so clear-cut and so familiar as to leave no practical question at all in any mind. Time, as a matter not of speculation but of simple experience, consists of three great constituents,--past, present and future. We all know them. We all live in them. They include everything, and make this a time universe. Is There a Universal Principle? Is there any other basic element in the physical universe? Is there any other thing, which is not to be resolved [p. 21] into one or all of these three,--space, matter and time? No. We know of no other. These are what all can agree upon. This is a universe. Of that we feel very sure. Is there then any universal principle? Is there anything which space and matter and time have in common, beside the fact that they are in the same universe? We need not speak now of their relationship to each other. That is a profound and subtle question. We are asking rather the simpler question, Is there anything which these three,--space, matter and time,--have in common? Is there anything like a universal structure in all three? To this there is an immediate answer. There is one thing which these basic realities have in common. It suggests itself at once. It is, that each one of these elemental things of the physical universe is threefold. It is length, breadth and height, in one Space. It is energy, motion and phenomena, in one Substance. It is past, present and future, in one Time. That is truly a vast coincidence. As a space universe, as a substance universe, and as a time universe, it is in each case three things in one. This is at once the most obvious and the most striking thing about this structure of space, of matter and of time. Different as these three elements are, they have this in common. Each is three things in one. The riddle of the universe now takes this form:--Why is the physical universe, in each of its basic elements, three things in one? Where is the answer? How far in the universe does this vast coincidence extend? Does it include man, who [p. 22] is so much a vital part of the universe? Does it include God, who is the ground of the universe? Does it reach as deep and as high as that? Is the answer to the riddle of the threefold universe to be found in God? We make no apology for speaking of God. A universe without God is meaningless now. For the day of the blind soul in a black universe has gone by. The stars and the atoms