Slashdot Mirror
Sir Isaac Newton: The world Will End In 2060
Rikardon writes "A professor at King's College in Halifax has discovered, among the papers of Sir Isaac Newton, a prediction by this 'most influential scientist who ever lived' that the world would end in 2060. Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton 'was a theologian who wrote well over a million words on Biblical subjects,' and who devoted 'something like 55 to 60 years' studying the Book of Revelation."
The story submission blows this *waaay* out of proportion. Way to go, Slashdot editors, letting this one through.
Basically, if one reads the article, one finds that Newton made the prediction because *he* was fed up with people setting dates and wanted to put an end to it, and figured that with his repution, he could quiet them down by giving a different date from all of the rest of them.
He wrote: "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."
Goddamn it, Slashdot stories frequently have incredibly overblown headlines. You have to go read the article to get a *modicum* of useful information anymore.
May we never see th
Mr. Newton was a scientist so I am sure he would appreciate the following about the battle of armageddon from "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural " (jref.sawco.com):
"Although commonly used as a designation for the end of the world, this name actually applies to a real geographical location in Israel near Mt. Carmel, about five miles from the coastal city of Haifa. It was the site of several important battles in ancient history.
According to the predictions of St. John in Apocalypse, a battle between good and evil will take place there at some unspecified time, producing a river of human blood "to the height of a horse's bridle'' for a distance of 200 miles. Assuming that (a) all the blood were to be drained from each victim's body at the same moment, that (b) the "river'' is only ten feet wide, and it does not flow at all, that (c) the horse is rather small, it would mean that some 360,000,000 persons would have to be slaughtered during this battle, all simultaneously. Since the area cannot itself hold that number of persons standing should-to-shoulder, it appears that St. John's figures are poorly arrived at. But perhaps that is one of the properties of a miracle. "
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
From Ezekiel 4:6 - `I have appointed thee each day for a year.' There is much supporting text, but basically it has been so popular because it works: it matches history rather nicely.
The foundational system of interpretation that uses this extensively and fits history so well is called Historicism, and the Roman Catholic Church don't like it very much because it identifies them as antiChrist... so Alcazar and Ribera, a couple of Jesuits, invented Futurism (which tears of and places a critical chunk of the prophecy waaay in the future, now supported by the Catholic-influenced Christian Right) and Praeterism (which uses a minor king name Antiochus Epiphanes as antiChrist, treats the 1260 days as literal, and pronounces the prophecy fulfilled and ended, now supported by other factions who can't buy Futurism but don't like Historicism because it's an ecumenical barrier).
Sorry you asked? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
All belief systems are not the same. In science, one chooses empirically justified axioms. As long as there is a common bond of experience, we can model those experiences with axioms. We pick and choose things from the infinite world of mathematical truth to imperfectly model the real world. If our axioms are very close to reality, we can derive many levels of real consequence.
Of course, you can pick any set of axioms and tie those axioms to the world in strange and imprecise way. This lack of rigor makes it impossible to derive consequences of any meaningful depth. Even if you could derive new theorems, why should they help describe the objects they model. If the axioms don't describe experience, why should the theorems.
Chris Mesterharm
See for example Newton Timeline. Note the item for 1697, when Newton was 55. He recieved a problem from Bernoulli that he solved and published the solution to anonymously. Bernoulli was easily able to identify Newton as the author "as the lion is known by its paw"--that is, by the style and depth of insight in the solution.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.