Manchester Memoirs, Vol. xlviii. (1904), No. 8. 39 



plementary upbuilding, does not conflict with the ideas 

 formed as to the duration of the universe from the study 

 of other processes of evolution. Of course, it is not denied 

 that a complementary process of upbuilding may occur. 

 All that the argument is intended to convey is that 

 such a process is not necessitated by the present state of 

 knowledge. 



For, if we would push the enquiry further and demand 

 to know how and when the heaviest forms of matter origi- 

 nated, we are face to face with the fundamental problem 

 on which no science has yet thrown light. How and when 

 did the universe originate ? All processes of evolution 

 that have been so far revealed have been all in the one 

 direction, and demand therefore a beginning and an end. 

 It is not difficult to see what the end must be if the 

 progress in the present direction is maintained. There 

 is no escape, according to current orthodox conceptions, 

 from the conclusion that the universe is tending to a 

 state of exhaustion in which all change must cease. 

 With regard to its origin it is sufficient if it is considered to 

 refer to one only of the three fundamental dimensions, 

 mass, space and time, for each is meaningless without 

 the other two. The simplest idea that it is possible to 

 hold of the nature of the initial creative act is to suppose 

 that it refers to time. The universe may be likened to a 

 wound-up clock, the creative act being the starting of the 

 clock. How long the clock has existed before it was started, 

 and how long it remains in existence after it has run 

 down, are questions without meaning, for the conception 

 of time without change is impossible, and mass and space 

 also only exist with reference to time. 



The other alternative is to consider evolution as pro- 

 ceeding in cycles continuously, or in other words to 

 suppose that for every process going on in the one 



