wavefunction which in turn requires an interpretation of ‘probabilities’ still remains unclear. Recent trend suggests to consider a solution of (3) in the form [@kie:rag]

$$\Psi({\it{G}},\phi)\simeq C({\it{G}}) 
{\exp \left[({i\over \hbar}) S_o({\it{G}}) \right]} \psi({\it{G}},\phi)$$

where ${\it{G}}$ denotes the gravitational fields, $\phi$ stands for nongravitational fields and $C$ is a slowing varying prefactor. One then obtains with the identification $$i\hbar\nabla S_o \nabla \psi\equiv i\hbar {\partial\psi\over {\partial t}}\simeq H_m\psi\,.$$ In deriving (5), one uses Wheeler-DeWitt equation with the WKB ansatz (4), but this has some limitations. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation (3) is linear in $\psi$ and hence if $\vert\psi_1>$ and $\vert \psi_2>$ are solutions of (3), then the superposition principle demands $\vert\psi>=a\vert\psi_1>+b\vert\psi_2>$ to be also a solution. There is no a priori reason why the universe could not be in this state. But experience dictates that the universe behaves almost classically as far as macroscopic observations are concerned. For such a superposed states e.g., like (4), the derivation of (5) cannot be carried out. This is an inherent difficulty if one starts with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In the present paper we try to resolve the problem of time using a semiclassical point of view, avoiding the steps (1), (4) and (5) but keeping the 