Time and Teleology; Order in the Universe

by Eddie Clynes

(Teleology: the doctrine or theory that all things or processes were 
designed to fulfil a purpose)

The debate in the previous AMR on the Big Bang theory, creation 
and materialism is welcome. It provides opportunities for Marxists to 
engage in philosophical discussion, with the main aim, as I see it, to 
substantiate the dialectical-materialist world outlook.

Of course, as Kenneth Neill Cameron points out in his Dialectical 
Materialism and Modern Science (quoted by Tim Wheeler), "there has been 
almost no follow up to the work of Marxist scientists like J D Bernal and J 
S B Haldane...". Marxists who also have a solid grounding in particular 
sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology are often best placed to 
substantiate dialectical materialism, but as the AMR debate shows, 
there is room enough for scientists, philosophers and those with a claim to 
both titles.

Contrary to Rafael Pla-Lopez's opinion, we must mix the scientific debate 
with the philosophical debate, otherwise the boundaries between materialism 
and idealism are ignored and we unwittingly put forward idealist 
propositions.

Rafael Pla-Lopez assures us "the existence of a beginning of the world is a 
scientific question." If "God" exists, "this existence could be 
scientifically proved."

Posing the question in this manner has already overstepped the bounds of 
materialism. It has already admitted the possibility of an ultimate 
building block or ultimate "force" in the "world" (universe).

Rafael seems to concede the possibility. After all in his article he says 
"the Big Bang is in the mainstream of cosmological science...which could 
imply a sad situation for philosophical materialism."

Dialectical materialism relies on the infinite complexity and infinite 
divisibility of matter.

If change (motion) is to be conceived as qualitative change resulting from 
quantitative changes arising from contradictions within matter, then 
allowing for an ultimate (indivisible) unit of matter, or opening the door 
to a first impulse defy dialectical materialism.

Along with the "beginning of the world", Rafael also speaks of the 
"beginning of time" and equates the age of "the whole universe" 
(my emphasis — EC) with the age of the Big Bang.

Finite time is a common conception in this debate. So is the separation of 
time from material existence.

George Tsoupros describes the Big Bang as "the demise of the classical 
behaviour of the universe". At the same time he states "the fact that the 
classical behaviour has a beginning in time — which in addition, somehow, 
defines the beginning of time itself — does not at all imply the universe 
itself has a beginning."

What type of universe is being posited, which disposes of time? Is it a 
universe where the laws of physics — including conservation — don't 
apply?

In my understanding of Marxism, time and space are not abstract concepts in 
the sense of having an existence divorced from matter, and vice-versa!

As materialists, we cannot conceive of any existence — a universe, any 
object, a photon — which does not, of necessity, imply time and space are 
also part of this existence.

The existence of matter presupposes the interaction of its elements and 
hence, change. Changes occur sequentially and have a certain duration. It 
is on this basis that the notion of time arises.

If we accept Lenin's definition that "matter is a philosophical category 
designating the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, 
and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while 
existing independently of them"1, then we must accept time as an 
objective phenomena, independent of human consciousness.

The fact that time is also eternal (infinite) follows from the absolute 
existence of matter (according to the laws of conservation).

Rafael Pla-Lopez's and George Tsoupros' references to "time" ("the 
beginning of time" etc.) seem to me (from a common sense point of view) to 
violate materialism.

Paul Davies, however, is definitely on the side of idealism.

In an article entitled The Future of God 2 Davies credits 
the Big Bang with the origin of the entire universe, but discounts the need 
for a first cause to have initiated the Big Bang.

Davies argues such an impulse is a cause and the Big Bang the effect. Cause 
and effect require time to exist, but time itself was created as part of 
the Big Bang.

Einstein showed time is part of the physical universe says Davies, closely 
interwoven with space and matter (a materialist position) but Einstein 
required any explanation of the origin of the whole universe to explain how 
time came into existence (a lapse into idealism).

According to Davies, the Big Bang theory does this, showing how space, time 
and matter originate from nothing, spontaneously.

Davies quotes Stephen Hawking to demonstrate that the question "What 
happened before the Big Bang?" is meaningless. Time did not exist before 
the Big Bang, because there was no "before".

George Tsoupros' quote from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of 
Time "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had 
a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary 
or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What 
place then for a creator?" seems to contradict Davies' interpretation of 
Hawking.

But the Big Bang is not the only occasion on which to introduce a god. Paul 
Davies is, no doubt, a sophisticated preacher and it's instructive to be 
aware of the detail of his arguments.

The Future of God begins by rejecting God, specifically a "God-of-
the-gaps", a god invoked to explain phenomena which have (as yet) no 
scientific explanation.

Davies assures us he's a scientist and scientists reject miracles and the 
supernatural. "After all," he says, "it's the job of science to explain the 
world by natural causes." So far, so good.

But Davies' defence of scientific method is short-lived. He soon opens the 
back door for a deity.

Where did the "law-like order in nature" come from, marvels Davies. "The 
laws of physics marvellously permit the universe to create itself," he 
says, adding "This would not be possible with any old laws."

Another remarkable property of the universe is the "self-organising and 
self-complexifying power of the laws of physics."

The complexity of biological systems — especially life evolving from 
single cells to humans — is marvelled at. The laws of nature do seem to 
ensure that life and consciousness of some form will emerge, "somewhere and 
somewhen" in the evolving universe, Davies assures us.

A third special feature of the laws of science is the "astonishing fact 
that human beings have the intellectual ability to make sense of the world 
through scientific investigation." This, says Davies, "hints at a deep link 
between the human mental realm and the underlying abstract world of 
mathematical laws that govern the universe."

This "ingeniously ordered universe" can be simply taken as given or it can 
be seen as "a manifestation of something deeper and more significant," says 
Davies, inviting the reader into the trap.

Forever the scientist, Davies assures us science "cannot prove or disprove 
the existence of a deeper meaning; it can only offer circumstantial 
evidence. Each of us must decide for ourselves."

According to Davies, proof of a god will only be gained by "taking account 
of the scientific world view, not by fleeing from it."

Teleological arguments (seeing imparted order and purpose in the universe) 
are always seductive.

The world is truly amazing. Many systems and processes work with 
efficiency, rationality and beauty. There's also much chaos in the 
universe.

To understand biological phenomena, to pick just one area, we need to 
examine its history, its development. Darwin's theory of natural selection 
reveals the mechanisms for such development of living organisms and 
systems.

What we observe today is the result of millions of years of refinement, 
millions of years of favourably adapted organisms surviving and 
proliferating and unfavourably adapted ones dying out.

In time, the essential processes in the development of life on earth will 
be discovered and reproduced. It will be, as Peter Symon states, "another 
nail in the coffin of the tenacious supernatural 'creationists'."

There is no way of proving that order, beauty and rationality observed in 
nature reflects the work of a creator. It's not a scientifically testable 
proposition. It's metaphysical speculation, idealism.

I think that is why Paul Davies feels logically compelled to persuade us 
that, although "most scientists take the rational intelligibility of the 
universe for granted", scientists really need "an element of faith"!!

* * *

1 Materialism and Empirio-Criticism LCW Vol. 14, Ch. 2, sect. 4.

2 Sydney Morning Herald 21/12/96.