Isaac Newton's introduction to the principia

[rowen]

Thought this was interesting:


The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and hence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.


This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.



Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances. Gravitation towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from the sun decreases accurately as the inverse square of the distances as far as the orbit of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelion of the planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelion of the comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea.


And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates.



Isaac Newton. Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World. Translated into English by Andrew Motte in 1729. The translations revised, and supplied with an historical and explanatory appendix by Florian Cajori. Volume Two: The System of the World. Paperback edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1962. Pp. 543-547. [First edition, 1686-7]

To Newton, both science and the Bible lead to God, they were two sides of the same coin.

[r~]

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. (Newton – my bolding)

Newton was also wrong about the "time is a constant" conjecture.

As it turns out, this most beautiful system of brane, universe, galaxy, sun, planets, and comets can also easily proceed from Laws of Nature and Physics that were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang.

Just ask any atheist or deist.

Science – the quest for truth – is the best lead to God. A Holy Book will only ever be man's imperfect image of God.

ItS
Peace
r~

[McCulloch]

Newton was wrong about a whole lot of other things too. He had some really wacko theories about revelation.

Is there a question for debate?

[QED]

Newton was wrong about a whole lot of other things too. He had some really wacko theories about revelation.

Is there a question for debate?

He was pretty keen on Alchemy too.

[Cathar1950]

Newton was wrong about a whole lot of other things too. He had some really wacko theories about revelation.

Is there a question for debate?

He was pretty keen on Alchemy too.

He must have slid in after the witch burnings. He is like other humans and the bible, he can't be right about everything especially about stuff you don't know or you lack evidence. But some see reason, evidence and experience as a burden or limited to experiences to those that believe "correctly".

[rowen]

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. (Newton – my bolding)

Newton was also wrong about the "time is a constant" conjecture.

As it turns out, this most beautiful system of brane, universe, galaxy, sun, planets, and comets can also easily proceed from Laws of Nature and Physics that were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang.

Just ask any atheist or deist.

Science – the quest for truth – is the best lead to God. A Holy Book will only ever be man's imperfect image of God.

ItS
Peace
r~

And if they are fixed this means? Out of the chaos of the big bang, an explosion of matter and nothing else, came the universe and an earth precisely situated to support life. That's what newton was getting at. Even if the laws were supposedly fixed, they are like fake dice, the outcome was always forseeable and not mere chance

[rowen]

Newton was wrong about a whole lot of other things too. He had some really wacko theories about revelation.

Is there a question for debate?

actually he held to no wacko beliefs, the theories on revelation were just that, theories, they were scribbled personal notes, not published, and they are out of context. People make a big deal out of them when they've never studied his writing. He wrote 10 times more on the Bible then he did about Science

[McCulloch]

Newton was wrong about a whole lot of other things too. He had some really wacko theories about revelation.

Is there a question for debate?

actually he held to no wacko beliefs, the theories on revelation were just that, theories, they were scribbled personal notes, not published, and they are out of context. People make a big deal out of them when they've never studied his writing. He wrote 10 times more on the Bible then he did about Science

It is not important. Newton was right about mathematics and physics and wrong about religion. Big deal.

Is there a question for debate?

[QED]

And if they are fixed this means? Out of the chaos of the big bang, an explosion of matter and nothing else, came the universe and an earth precisely situated to support life. That's what newton was getting at. Even if the laws were supposedly fixed, they are like fake dice, the outcome was always forseeable and not mere chance

Hold on a mo; when physicists accelerate and collide particles at higher and higher energies they do so in order to recreate the conditions prevailing soon after the BB. What happens at these temperatures is that symmetries re-emerge and physical law disappears. This is how the weak nuclear force was unified with the electromagnetic force. Spontaneous symmetry breaking represents a phase change -- just like cooling water below 0 deg. C turns liquid to ice. In its liquid phase water has more symmetry than ice, which takes on spontaneous structure when the liquid symmetries are broken. This is why the laws of physics can be treated as chance: they hold, like the structure of ice until melted again, but can re-freeze in any pattern thereafter.

To understand why the symmetries broke in ways that led to four forces that combine to permit stable atomic structures (and lots of them!) we can suppose that God very carefully managed the cooling, or we can suppose that this kind of thing happens over and over again in some fashion, and its only those outcomes that can lead to physicists that ever get seen.

[Cathar1950]

Newton was wrong about a whole lot of other things too. He had some really wacko theories about revelation.

Is there a question for debate?

actually he held to no wacko beliefs, the theories on revelation were just that, theories, they were scribbled personal notes, not published, and they are out of context. People make a big deal out of them when they've never studied his writing. He wrote 10 times more on the Bible then he did about Science

It is not important. Newton was right about mathematics and physics and wrong about religion. Big deal.

Is there a question for debate?

Is there even a question for discussion?

I guess we could ask, besides historians, anthropologists, some psychologists and a some sociologists, who is right about religion?
Of course there are a number of people that claim they are right but seem to be unaware of interpretation except when it comes to others that disagree.