^'NATURALISM AND AGNOSTICISMS 353 



Observe the words " without assignable bounds "- — without 

 knowable limits, infinite. So that the law of the instability of the 

 homogeneous is disposed of because it does not apply to an infinite 

 homogeneous medium. But since infinity is inconceivable by us, 

 this alleged case of stable homogeneity is inconceivable too. Hence 

 the proposal is to shelve the law displayed in all things we know, 

 because it is inapplicable to a hypothetical thing we can not know, 

 and can not even conceive ! !N^ow let me turn to the essential point. 

 This nominally-exceptional case was fully recognized by me in the 

 chapter he is criticising. In § 155 of First Principles (p. 429), it 

 is written: — 



" One stable homogeneity only, is hjy'pothetically possible. If centers 

 of force, absolutely uniform in their powers, were diffused with absolute 

 uniformity through unlimited space, they would remain in equilibrium. 

 This, however, though a verbally intelligible supposition, is one that can 

 not be represented in thought; since unlimited space is inconceivable." 



So that this nominal exception which Professor Ward urges against 

 me as a " fatal defect," was set forth by me thirty-seven years ago ! 

 A somewhat more involved case may next be dealt with. Pro- 

 fessor Ward writes: — 



" Moreover, on the physical assumption from which Mr. Spencer sets 

 out, viz., that the mass of the universe and the energy of the universe 

 are fixed in quantity — which ought to mean are finite in quantity — 

 there can be no such alternations [of evolution and dissolution] as he 

 supposes " (i., 192). 



After some two pages of argument, he goes on : — - 



" And so while all transformations of energy lead directly or indi- 

 rectly to transformation into heat, from that transformation there is no 

 complete return, and, therefore finally no return at all. This then is the 

 conclusion to which Mr. Spencer's premises lead. Two eminent physi- 

 cists who accept those premises may be cited at this point : ' It is abso- 

 lutely certain,' they say, ' that life, so far as it is physical, depends essen- 

 tially upon transformations of energy; it is also absolutely certain that 

 age after age the possibility of such transformations is becoming less and 

 less; and, so far as we yet know, the final state of the present universe 

 must be an aggregation (into one mass) of all the matter it contains, i. e. 

 the potential energy gone, and a practically useless state of kinetic en- 

 ergy, i. e. uniform temperature throughout that mass. . . . The present 

 visible universe began in time and will in time come to an end ' " (p. 194). 



Mark now, however, that this opinion of " two eminent physi- 

 cists," quoted to disprove my position, and tacitly assumed to have 

 validity in so far as it serves that end, is forthwith dismissed as hav- 

 ing, for other purposes, no validity. His next paragraph runs: — 



" To this conclusion we are surely led from such premises. But again 

 I ask what warrant is there for th6 premises? Our experience certainly 

 does not embrace the totality of things, is, in fact, ridiculously far from 



VOL. LVI. — 28 



