EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE. 603 
I do not agree with those who say that the recent advances in physics 
have no important value for philosophy. The most creative philosophical 
thinkers in the past have as a rule been saturated with the science of 
their time, which gave substance and body to their philosophy. And it 
is only to be expected that the recent revolutionary advances of physics 
are bound to have the most profound effect on our world-view and on our 
philosophical outlook. How, for instance, could philosophy, which has 
for thousands of years speculated on the nature of time and space, be 
unaffected by the fruitful integration of the two which has been effected 
by the physicists in our time ? Again, the concept of the quantum, with 
its peculiar behaviour, its holism, its indeterminacy, is bound to be far- 
reaching for philosophy no less than for physics. Of course, it is extremely 
difficult at this early stage, when we are at the beginnings of these changes, 
and physical theory is still in a state of flux, to say what exactly will be 
the philosophical outcome of the new physics. But I have little doubt 
that the revolution in physics will yet be followed by a revolution in 
philosophy, and that im their joining of forces a new era will open up for 
both science and philosophy. 
So far as philosophy is concerned, one is at present perhaps more 
impressed with the difficulties and perplexities, arising from the new 
concepts in science, than with its solid results. Thus, one is inclined, 
from the relativity standpoint, to attach the greatest importance to the 
new space-time concept. If the old forces of nature, like gravitation, and 
perhaps even electro-magnetism, are (as Einstein teaches) nothing but 
curvatures of space-time, if matter itself is really only such a curvature, 
one feels inclined to look upon space-time as the basic structure of the 
world, and as no mere mathematical symbolism. Space-time becomes 
something like the old ether, a substratum or matrix from which all the 
physical differentiations have taken place. To such a view one is in- 
evitably led by the Relativity theory and its results. And yet the next 
moment, when one considers the behaviour of the ultimate physical 
units, especially the electron and the quantum, one meets with phenomena 
in flagrant contradiction with the idea of space-time, as if for the electron 
and quantum space and time really do not exist, as if space-time is a 
macroscopic result rather than an ultimate basic feature of the cosmos. 
If space-time is merely a statistical macroscopic result, there seems to be 
some flaw in the fundamental relativity treatment which makes it basic 
to everything in the world of existence. We seem to be making for a 
teal clash between the relativity and the quantum concepts, unless we 
have to admit that both are still provisional, and that a wider, truer 
unification or reconciliation is still to come. 
I could refer to other difficulties and perplexities arising from the new 
physics, but as time is short I pass on to another point which has perhaps 
a closer bearing on our topic of discussion. I wish to refer to the peculiar 
character of the ultimate physical units and their bearing on the evolution 
of the universe. Many physicists, including even a profound thinker like 
Sir Arthur Eddington, maintain the view that exact science, and physics 
in particular, is confined to the metrical aspects of the world and has 
nothing to say as to the nature of the universe. If this is really so, then 
how could Sir J. Jeans say in a recent famous book of his that the universe 
