The author of these essays was not a philosopher.He has worked for many years as a specialist in
electronics andhas tackled subjects in physics, solid state electronics, microelectronics,
computers and information theory, being also concerned with theirapplications to economical and
social life. For a period of timehe coordinated activities in other areas of science and technology,
and presently (1991) he is the President of the Romanian Academy.The thing that he noticed on the
scientific level was a lack ofunity in science which is philosophically covered by the concept
of the unity of the material world. This thing does not seem atall sufficient, since the unity of
the world is a necessary conditionfor our thinking framework: a more clear image must be provided
of the links that make up the connection between the known aspectsof the material world.
It is known that physics is presently debatingthe problem of whether our universe is finite or
infinite. Butcan the problem of finite or infinite affect the general idea,or be an essential
problem of the materialist philosophy ? Engelswas right when he said that a simplified image of a
finite universeleads to a divinity existing beyond the space-time limits of thisuniverse.
Finite and infinite must be now judged in relation tothe theories of relativity and of elementary
particles.
Can we disregard the discoveries done in astronomy,the contemporary cosmological theories based on
the theory ofrelativity and on the corrections and additions brought to thelatter ? And the fact
that astrophysics must also use the theoryof elementary particles to try to explain some essential
phenomenamet in the Cosmos ? And the modifications taking place regardingspace and time in
microcosms ?
In the previous century it seemed absurd tothink of a material existence outside space and time,
as longas Science could offer no possibility, no opening for such ideas.But todays Physics offers
a different view. And anyway, the humanmind has grounds to ask such a question independently of
the discoveriesand the enigmas of Science. For this reason we still have largepossibilities to
construct a philosophical image of the worldstarting from the modality in which our mind thinks up
the existence.And if an organ like the brain is considered a device, then theway in which it
thinks about certain fundamental aspectsof the existence and conscience can have the
values of "philosophicalexperiments".
Let's consider what is the image Science givesregarding the finite or infinite universe.
A paper in a physicaljournal starts with the significant question: " Is the universeof infinite
extension or is it a finite system ? "1.
We find this question in many other works too2,3.
We see models with an open universe in expansion towards infinityand starting from an initial moment.
Or with a closed, finite,universe having an expansion and then a recession until it disappears.Or with
a closed but pulsating universe having cycles of expansionsand total recessions. All these models
coexist in the scientificenvironment and a debate exists in connection with the experimentalevidence
that Science accumulates. Science could not yet adopta definitive model and according to V. L. Ginsburg
"the materialisticphilosophy does not and cannot put a taboo on the choice of the
model for the universe"4.The same view
was shared by the Romanian astronomer Calin Popovicifor whom the infinite or finite universe could no
longer testifyeither for or against the materiality of the
world5.
Physical models of the universe were developedin Romania by Acad. Octav
Onicescu6,N.
Ionescu-Pallas7,and L.
Sofonea8 :according to the type of physical theory
used, one would encounterthe model of an universe with a finite number of galaxies, ina finite
space but infinite in time (the invariant mechanics),or an infinite universe in space and time.
Confronted with sucha variety of models, the question arises as to what extend canwe distinguish the
physical infinity from the various types ofmathematical infinity; and in connection with this, how are
wegoing to understand the infinity from that philosophical pointof view.
To fix some of the notions that we are goingto use in this work, we mention that by
material worldwe mean the whole existence, the total existence, that
could enclose, in the most general case, both the universe currentlytreated by physics and that
thing that might exist beyond ouruniverse. Thus the material world could be
constitutedfrom a deep material existence, that we shall call orthoexistence,
and from universe-existences like our universe; these latterexistences are
grafted somehow on the orthoexistence.
We may have doubts about the infinity of theuniverse, but it is by no means easier to imagine a
finite universe.The question will always arise: But what is there beyond thatfinite barrier ?
But have we the right to ask ourselves this questionin this way ? If we remain on the position
of classicalEuclid's geometry, based on empirical observation, then we cannotimagine a limit
in space and hence we should accept that the universeis infinite. But Einstein showed that a
finite universe is physicallypossible since on cosmical scale the universe does not obey Euclid's
geometry. Hence there is a rather subtle physical image accordingto which the finite but unlimited
universe is possible, and popularscience type of books present numerous attempts to give a simplified
image of this concept. The finite universe is explained by "spacecurvature". In fact
space curvature (a simplifiedimage is not enough for this concept) appears in Einstein's
generaltheory of relativity not only on global scale but also on a localscale when a large mass
concentration appears.
If we now refer to local scales and go towardsextremely small dimensions, then we meet again the
problems ofthe elementary particles and of the microphysics in general. Thecosmological
singularity and the elementary particles raise similarquestions. One of the most important questions
at the scale ofthe elementary particles and especially in searching for theirstructure refers to
the nature of the space and time inthe deep microphysics. In general the idea prevails
that in suchcases the usual space-time concepts are compromised, that a quantificationof space might
be necessary and thus an "infraction"of microcausality takes
place9.
The idea of a space quantum, which obviouslycannot appear in space but is itself space of an
extremely smalluniversal "dimension" and with an inner content thatis not space, is rather
chilly. What does then happen in the depthsof the existence? Contemporary microphysics does not go on
thepath of infinite divisibility of matter in the sense of particledivision: "We (then) find
the profound and natural idea thatthe mechanical and unlimited division of matter must stop one
day and this will happen in rather unusual way...
"10.
In this area, still rather uncertain, onelooks for the existence of a superspace, like the space
with theclassical four space-time coordinates plus a number of other severalcoordinates in which
one looks for super symmetry properties thatwould explain the gravitational and electromagnetical
field componentsusing a superfield called supergravity. Such a theorywould try
to unify the quantum mechanics and the general theoryof gravity in order to explain as unitary as
possible the matter11. As one can see, the
tendency is to add new physical realities,deeper than the ones we have known so far; these cannot
be alwaysplaced strictly in the usual space-time framework.
Another image that is taking shape in physicsis that of attributing to the vacuum some
properties. Underan extremely powerful electric field the vacuum could give birthto an
electron-positron pair, i.e. would be a source for elementaryparticle. Thus the vacuum would
generally appear as a certainsubstance and the very universe would originate in vacuum. Inan other
image, the whole universe would be only the equivalentof a single particle.
Forewordvi
