Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Friday, July 8, 2022

The Parallel Universes Theory in the Middle Ages

Check out my Ambient Drone musical project at https://6138.bandcamp.com/

 In 1277, Etienne Tempier was the bishop of Paris, and there was talk that, at the Sorbonne, members of the arts faculty - the professors of the non-theological side of the school - were teaching heretical ideas, mostly derived from Aristotle's writings. The Pope himself, a former Sorbonne theology professor, had written to ask Tempier to look into these rumors.

The bishop responded with a list of 219 propositions that he condemned as heretical. Any arts faculty who taught them would be excommunicated from the church and would lose their livelihoods as professors.

This 13th century disagreement between two university departments, arts and theology, would prompt medieval thinkers to consider ideas that might seem surprisingly modern. By rejecting a key Aristotelian principle, Tempier inspired later medieval scholars to develop a multiverse theory and to consider the possibilities of faraway planets and alien beings. From knocking out of scientific dogma, new ideas began to grow.

In the 19th century, Pierre Duhem, a scientist and historian, re-examined the history of medieval scientific thought and came up with a controversial thesis: there was, essentially, no "scientific revolution" during the Renaissance, only a continuation of work that was already happening in the "dark ages" of medieval thought. In particular, Duhem thought that Tempier's 1277 condemnations liberated Europe's Christian thinkers from Aristotle and opened up the way to the development of modern science.

Conventional historians sometimes take a skeptical view of Duhem, but in the case of medieval multiverses, at least, it's possible to follow a trail from one of Tempier's condemnations to ideas that emerged more than a century later about infinite worlds, full of alien creatures.

Among the ideas that Tempier condemned was a principle of Aristotelian thought that held that the "first cause" (or, as medieval scholars would have said, God) could not have made more than one world. The logic went something like this: Earth was among the world's four key elements, and one of its principles was that it moved towards the center of the world. If there was a neighboring world to ours, though, with earth at its center, that earth wouldn't be moving towards the center of our world. Since that violated the rules of how earth behaved, there could only be one world.

To Tempier, this idea went against a key theological principle: God was all-powerful and could accomplish whatever he willed. Since there couldn't be limits to God's power, there could be multiple worlds, if he wanted to make them.

Some medieval thinkers took this as a challenge. They started to look more closely, for instance, at previous Aramaic comments on Aristotle and considered what else might be possible. They found new ideas that were outside the bounds of the Aristotelian physics of the day.

Richard of Middleton, for instance, who lived in the second half of the 13th century, responded to Tempier by affirming that it could be possible to have more than one universe: "God could have and could still now create another universe." He tried to reconcile this with Aristotelian thought by arguing that the matter of a second world would stay in its own separate universe, and earth elements would gather at the center of each.

A later scholar, William of Ware, developed this idea further. What did it mean to talk about another world, he wondered? He didn't think it was possible to have two neighboring universes: by definition, the universe should include all the creatures ever made. So how could there be more than one? He argued instead that multiple worlds would have to be entirely separate, with no way of interacting - what today we might think of as parallel universes.

By the 15th century, medieval ideas about the universe had spun far from Aristotle's idea of a single world, with earth concentrating at the center. The theologian and astronomer Nicholas of Cusa, who lived from 1410 to 1464, believed that if you were able to leave the earth, you would find multiple luminous bodies existing alongside our own world - far-off stars, planets and moons. He ever went so far as to imagine that these planets might be inhabited: he thought the sun might have bright, intellectual inhabitants, whereas the moon might have a "lunatic" population. This was still about a century before Galileo would famously reject the idea of a geocentric world and put the sun in the middle of the universe.

These medieval thinkers were working from a religious idea about divide power. But this line of inquiry prompted a scientific openness, too, to different ideas about the physical world and how it might work. Following Tempier's prompt led medieval scholars to some surprisingly modern ideas about parallel universes and exoplanets.

Check out my Ambient Drone musical project at https://6138.bandcamp.com/

Monday, June 29, 2020

On God or god.

Check out my Ambient Drone musical project at https://6138.bandcamp.com/

NOTE: I will use the word "God" referring to the creator, an all-powerful entity that created the world and interferes with it, depending on your particular belief, this concept can represent interchangeably a divine entity as described in any religion, or simply the universe. 
On the other hand "god" (lowercase) will be used as reference to a construct, just a human creation, a myth.



Let us suppose that the universe we now see has, as some suppose, grown by mere chance. Should we then expect every atom to act in any given conditions precisely similarly to another atom? If atoms be lifeless there is no reason to expect them to do anything without a controlling power. If on the other hand they be endowed with free will we are forced to the conclusion that all atoms in the universe have combined in the commonwealth and have made laws which none of them ever break. This is clearly an absurd hypothesis and therefore we are forced to believe in God. But this way of proving his existence at the same time disproves miracles and other supposed manifestations of divine power. It does not however disprove their possibility, for of course the maker of laws can also unmake them. We may arrive in another way at a disbelief in miracles. For if God is the maker of the laws, surely it would imply an imperfection in the law if it had to be altered occasionally, and such imperfection we can never impute to the divide nature, as in the Bible, God repented him of the work.

...we and all living things are simply kept going by chemical forces... and even if we had a good enough knowledge of the forces acting on anyone at any time, the motives pro and con, the constitution of his brain at any time, then we could tell exactly what he will do. From the religious point of view free will is a very arrogant thing for us to claim, for of course it is an interruption of God’s laws, for by his ordinary laws all our actions would be fixed as the stars.

It seems impossible to imagine that man, the Great Man, with his reason, his knowledge of the universe, and his ideas of right and wrong, Man with his emotions, his love and hate and his religion, that this man should be a mere perishable chemical compound whose character and his influence for good or for evil depend solely and entirely on the particular motions of molecules in his brain and that all the greatest men have been great by reason of some one molecule hitting up against some other a little oftener than in other men. Does not this seem utterly incredible and must not any one be mad who believes in such absurdity? (It is not absurd, happens every day. Consider people with Down Syndrome, Autism or just different IQ levels).
But what is the alternative? That, accepting the evolution theory which is practically proved, apes having gradually increased in intelligence, God suddenly by miracle endowed one with that wonderful reason which it is a mystery how we possess.

Our conscience is in the first place due to evolution, which would of course form instincts of self-preservation. Let us take for example the ten commandments as illustrative of primitive morality. Many of them are conducive to quiet living of the community which is best for the preservation of the species. Thus what is always considered the worst possible crime and the one for which most remorse is felt is murder, which is direct anhilitaion of the species. Again, as we know, among the Hebrews it was thought a mark of God’s favour to have many children, while the childless were considered as cursed by God. Among the Romans also widows were hated and forbidden to remain unmarried in Rome for more than one year. Now why these peculiar ideas? Were they not simply because these objects of pity or dislike did not bring forth fresh human beings? We can well understand how such ideas might grow up when men became rather sensible, for if murder and suicide were common in a tribe that tribe would die out and hence one which held such acts in abhorrence would have a great advantage.

Check out my Ambient Drone musical project at https://6138.bandcamp.com/

Introduction to a History of Witchcraft in Europe

Check out my Ambient Drone musical project at  https://6138.bandcamp.com/   Perhaps the easiest way to approach the confusion and discrepanc...