The Big Bang and materialism

I am not convinced that the recent two-part series of articles by
Peter Symon on the relation between modern cosmology and ideology
does justice to historical materialism in meeting the demands of
present-day ideological struggle.

by George Tsoupros*

Despite his commendable effort to discredit the ideological
offensive of mystics such as Paul Davies and John Gribbin, his
analysis seems to be predicated on the same source of confusions
which have enmeshed modern epistemologic thought. (methods of
thinking and discovering the truth. Ed).

Being a theoretical physicist and an active researcher in the
field of quantum cosmology myself, not only do I have a "first-
hand" experience in those theories that Mr Symon labels as
"creationist", "idealist" and "incompatible with materialism"
but, in addition, the more I explore their implications the more
I come to appreciate their immense potential for an ultimate
vindication of the dialectical materialist outlook.

The author of the two articles claims that recent observational
discoveries "have undermined the Big Bang theory of the creation
of the universe". Not so! They are simply indicative of a
discrepancy between the theory itself and certain consolidated
but quite arbitrary and external assumptions concerning the value
of certain parameters in the theory.

The Big Bang itself is not a theory of creation. The singularity
which describes the Big Bang has a very concrete mathematical
meaning. It signifies the demise of the classical understanding
of the behaviour of the universe.

In the context of such a behaviour and depending on a uniquely
specified set of initial conditions, the universe -- as a
physical system -- follows a unique pattern of evolution which is
mathematically described by the theory of General Relativity. The
fact that such behaviour has a beginning in time -- which in
addition, somehow, defines the beginning of time itself -- does
not at all imply that the universe itself has a beginning.

The universe is, ultimately, a quantum system manifesting a vast
wealth of potentialities associated with its possible courses of
evolution.  [at length scales where General Relativity ceases to be
a good description of its dynamical behaviour... delete]

The Big Bang singularity is, most emphatically, indicative of the
necessity for a quantum description of the universe -- one which
inherently transcends the concept of the beginning of space and
time and, consequently, of creation.

Such is also the case with the quantum concept of a "universe out
of nothing" which the author claims to be incompatible with
materialism. On this issue, the source of confusion is a problem
of language. The concept of "nothing" in quantum physics is
certainly not the concept of "nothing" in every-day life.

I need only quote one of the major propounders of the "something
out of nothing" theory when giving the physical interpretation of
his theory's pivotal equation:(1)

"The instanton...can be interpreted as describing the tunnelling
...from nothing, where by nothing I mean a state with no
classical space-time.[...] 'Nothing' is the realm of unrestrained
quantum gravity; it is a rather bizzare state in which all our
basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy, etc. lose their
meaning. This does not mean, however, that cosmic tunnelling
cannot be described without complete understanding of quantum
gravity...".

The physical structure of that "nothing" is today the object of
intense study, at the forefront of theoretical research.

In the category of popularised-science literature, Steven Hawking
-- the biggest, perhaps, authority in quantum cosmology today --
is far more explicit on the philosophical implications of the
something-out-of-nothing issue which he himself has formulated
mathematically as a "no boundary" condition: "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?"(2).

>From the above, it should be evident that modern cosmology
manifests a potential for the complete vindication of a
dialectical materialist outlook on nature.

Any attack on materialism is predicated on a tacit and purely 
imaginary metaphysical contradiction between two attributes of 
matter: Its manifestation and its potentialities. This contradiction
fails to grasp the dialectical relation between those two
qualities as different attributes of one and the same thing and
has been the basis of the dominant epistemological (method of -
Ed.) interpretation in physics since the early days of the wave-
particle debate.

I fear, that in attempting to discredit the scientific theories
of the Big Bang and the "out-of-nothing" no boundary condition,
Peter Symon is -- quite unwittingly and despite noble intentions
-- in line with the opponents of materialism.

To attack scientific theories rather than their ideologically
influenced epistemological (method of approach - Editor) and
philosophical interpretation is to provide potential grounds for
further attacks against materialism and dialectics.

Beyond doubt, Paul Davies, John Gribbin and their like are well
paid propagandists in the service of imperialism. Why is it,
however, that their idealist propaganda and obscurantist twaddle
falls on such fertile ground as far as the public is concerned?

The issue is no longer one of concerted and orchestrated
propaganda but one of ideology.

The reason for "humanity's difficulty" to conceive of an infinite
universe, does not simply lie in humanity's finite span as Peter
Symon suggests. It lies in the material conditions of humanity's
existence. It lies in alienation and the fetishism of commodity.
It is only too natural in a world where human beings do not
control the conditions of their lives but are instead controlled
by them, where human beings are subjected to the blind rule of
the circumstances which they themselves have created through
their historical activity, where human beings lose themselves in
the course of their life activity for man to see his own
existence and that of the world as a consequence, as the result
of the action of alien powers.

[Reword -- man's tendency to perceive of his own existence (and
that of the world, as a consequence) as the result of the action
of alien powers, is only too natural.]

This is, ultimately, the basis of all ideological influence on
science and of the mysticism which tends to shroud modern
cosmology. In quoting K. Marx on the issue of religious illusion,
Peter Symon is -- in his article certainly alluding to that
basis. What his analysis fails to grasp is, in my opinion, the
link between the idealist propaganda which he attempts to
argue against and the material basis of the ideology which
underpins it.

The spate of books in recent years "popularising" science in the
direction of mysticism and the interest which they have generated
is an aspect of the multi-faceted ideological attack which serves
powerful corporate interests in an economic context where
science-driven expanded production has created the conditions for
and necessity of critical thinking as a prerequisite for an
equally necessary socially expanded participation in decision
making.

The interest, however, with which mystical and positivist
interpretations are received from the public and scientific
community respectively is indicative of a historical practice
which is stifled in the present context of production relations.

"All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which
lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human
practice and in the comprehension of this practice"(3).

The ideological dominance of positivism and mysticism today is
indicative of a relation of forces severely unfavourable to the
development of a revolutionary movement which would be the only
force capable of dispelling all mysticism in social life through
a rational understanding of the world. Modern science provides
the potential for such an understanding.

Assailing its most advanced aspects in the name of materialism is
poor service to that cause of rational understanding. Alongside
the efforts to build a labour movement in conditions of corporate
economic dominance, the need for an advanced ideological
offensive against the "post-modern" servants of economic
rationalism in philosophy, is greater than ever.

1) A. Vilenkin: "The Birth of Inflationary Universes", Physical
Review D, volume 27, number 12, page 2848, (1983).
2) S. Hawking: "A Brief History Of Time" p 149
3) K. Marx: Thesis on Feuerbach VIII (Marx-Engels Col. Wks Vol 5,
p 5)

* George Tsoupros is Ph.D. of Theoretical Physics, Dept of
Mathematics, University of Melbourne.

Answer of Peter Symon