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."
Yes, but Einstein's theory has the world ending in 2055.
Theory #29 - Information theory 101
All belief systems, from Catholicism to Physics to Astrology, are essentially the same. To build a belief system, you first need axioms. These are the facts that you take for granted. They do not need to be proven, usually because they cannot be. They form the foundation of your belief system and without them (all of them) the system will not hold up.
An example of an Axiom is "God is omniscient and omnipotent". It cannot be proven true or false by logical or experimental means. Indeed, experiments themselves are based on a scientific Axiom; that all phenomena are repeatable, given their causes can be re-created. This is not necessarily true in, say, the Christian belief system, where God can cause miracles to occur once and never again.
Once you have your set of Axioms, you can start to build your rule base. Rules are what make your system useful. All your rules must be based on either axioms or other rules. If any of your rules contradict each other, then either your logic is flawed, or one (or more) of your axioms are contradictory and must be changed (along with all the rules based off that axiom).
The reason humans build belief systems is to add order to a chaotic world. By building a mental construct that says 'Here are the rules' these systems allow humans to cope with each other, our environment, and ourselves with some degree of certainty. However, it is important to remember that ALL belief systems are simply mental constructs designed to form the world into a model that we can understand. A rose is what it is regardless of what we call it, or what significance we place on it's existence.
Bush only has a year left in office. The world will end before then!
Please remember that Newton had lengthy periods of what can charitably be described as "screaming nervous breakdowns". He spent far too long losing himself in alchemy and frantic attempts to interpret the book of revalations etc.
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
Well, nose-thumbing on the submitters part aside, what does this prove? Isaac Newton was Christian? OK, but this isn't news. Way back in grade school and high school science classes we learned about this. We also learned that the Vatican wasn't entirely impressed with Newton's investigations which doesn't really mean much either. Newton was a believer in the bible, apparently a very devout one who believed that the bible was true and correct. The areas of his investigations didn't reveal anything that contradicted the bible, at least in his opinion. If in 2060 passes by uneventfully (or even eventfully but still passes by) will that mean that the bible has been disproven? No. It won't be proven either.
The problem that most people have with the combination of religion and science is that religion often tries to impose what appears in the bible over what we have learned through experience and conjecture. Science as it is supposed to be practiced is a constantly self-correcting body of knowledge. This body of knowledge is used to produce a working model of the universe. In Newton's time the force = mass / acceleration was accurate enough to describe most things that they investigated. Time passed and there were problems with this. To a first approximation in most peoples lives this is still accurate, but if you're a cosmologist you'll want a more accurate model which includes Einstein's theories as an example. If you're looking at very small things rather than very large you'll be interested in quantum theory and so on.
Science evolves (a word that puts a furrow in the brow of some religious people) based on a refinement of information and the advancement of knowledge. If based on your religious conviction you insist that the speed of light in a vacuum isn't 3*10^8 m/s or that things do in fact go faster than it or that the sun is the center of the universe then science has a problem with that. It's easily reconcilable if you can find actual evidence to support your theory, scripture doesn't count.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
PROOF THAT NEWTON IS EVIL:
N-E-W-T-O-N = 14+5+23+20+15+14 = 91
Add this to the date of his death (1727): 1818
Flip this upside down: 8181.
Take away the year of his birth (1642): 6539
Add GRAVITY (7+18+1+22+9+20+25=102): 6641
Add 10 (newton had ten fingers): 6651
Gravity is an inverse square law, operating in three dimensions so multiply by the inverse square of 3: 739.
Subtract his age when he died (85): 654
Add 24/3, the date this story was published if you're british (which he was): 662.
Finally, add the number of laws of motion he created (3): 665.
Fuck.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton ...
I'm pretty shocked that the editors let this tirade go through. Can't we have people simply submit storied without adding their two cents in anymore? Submitters, please save your editorial comments for the "Comments" section.
Regarding those narrow-minded simpletons such as myself, there are plenty of intellectuals throughout history who have held dubious beliefs that we have chosen to ignore. Plato was a big supporter of slavery. Tesla believed he had been contacted by aliens. Linus Pauling claimed Vitamin C possessed all kinds of miraculous abilities. So what? Is the submitter saying that if I admire these men for their scientific achievements, that I am somehow required to accept all their beliefs?
I may admire Plato's philosophical ability without accepting his love of slavery. Similarly, I can respect Newton's contributions to mathematics and physics without deciding that devout religous faith and skeptical scientific inquiry are natural compliments to one another.
GMD
watch this
The world ends Newton!
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
A man who died a virgin has to keep himself busy somehow. :)
The world is going to end in 2060.000013. He forgot to account for general relativity.
ended well before his 30th birthday. After that he made a complete fool of himself with his attempts to apply his rapidly dimishing mental abilities to "decoding" the Bible. I was a physics student back in the days when the History of Science was still considered a necessary part of training as a scientist. As I recall from Newton's biographys, he made a number of attempts to date Biblical events, including creation, and missed every one by at least an order of magnitude. No one who has any knowledge of Newton's life and work is likely to consider this "prediction" as anything more than it was: the rantings of a demented mind.
Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry
Good point. Whenever religion pops up here, anyone supporting it (or any "non-geek" world view) is often flamed and rapidly roasted.
I have friends who are devout athiests as well as friends who are strict fundamentalist Christians -- as well as friends who are Wiccan, Quaker, Buddist, and memembers of other religions, including "new-agers." I've seen people with faith do remarkable things (Yes -- I've seen faith healing). I've learned that, even though I've studied many religions, I don't know squat about religion.
I've seen many people here continually point out that any form of religious or spiritual belief is unproven, and therefore, untrustworthy and false.
I have yet, however, to see anyone who has said such a thing show that s/he knows the first thing about the religion they are claiming is false -- other than what outsiders say of various religions.
Newton was very interested in religious and spiritual matters -- and even studied astrology. (There is a story that Halley asked him, "Why do you believe in astrology?" To which Newton replied, "Because I have studied it. You have not." -- I've seen writings that document this as true and others that claim it is false, but it's an interesting point.)
I'll probably get flamed for this (by people that think they know everything but have never studied any of the world's religions), since I'm sticking up for Newton and others believing in religious beliefs that can't be proven scientifically, but I think it's a point worth making.
In my experience, I withhold judgement. By not judging my friends of many different religious, I've been able to have some wonderful opportunities to learn and see things I would have never expected to see.
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
Funny, but this post almost proves my point -- that any view involving religion is flamed. I'm not saying this post is a flame, but it is a great example of someone who believes strongly in science and is so sure s/he is right that s/he won't even pay attention to what is being said about other points of view.
Basically, it's an example of someone so sure science is the ONLY way, they refuse to even consider other options. It shows that science can be as blind a religion as extreme fundamentalism.
It's the "I'm right and I am so sure I'm right, I won't even consider anything else and I know it's got to be wrong if it's not my point of view," thing -- the same for a believer in science as for a believer in the Bible. Both are equally ignorant of the other points of view and both are equally stubborn in refusing to even look into other ways.
As I said, I keep an open mind. It is not uncommon for me to be invited to a range of religious ceremonies. I think it's clear I've been open minded and seen things others here haven't.
For ages we prayed anw we were the victims of famine and disease.
You're right. Now we don't have to worry about hunger -- nobody starves any more. Science has solved that problem. And certainly, disease is no longer a problem. (I'm glad you didn't hear the show on AIDS I heard yesterday -- about how over 30% of the population in some areas of Africa is HIV positive -- it might lead you to doubt that we are no longer victims of disease.)
I have been to places like St. Anne's Cathedral in Quebec, or Chimayo, in New Mexico (or Lourdes in France). I've seen people I've known, with "incurable" conditions be healed by their faith.
I never said science was wrong. I never said don't believe in science. All I pointed out was that I've seen a WIDE variety, from no faith at all, to faith in science, to faith in spiritual beliefs. I've seen many different things work for many people.
While I don't want to talk about my beliefs here, I do want to point out it is unscientific to belittle things one has not investigated or studied. It is accepting something as untrue without investigating it.
Those who base their faith on religious scripture and belittle science usually have no understanding at all of science. And those who base their faith on science and belittle faith usually have no understanding, at all, of faith. As is shown by your post.
If science works for you, great, but that doesn't mean you know enough about faith based points of view to drag them down or belittle them.
(Side note: From your comments like "Keep praying," and "go to your doctor," it seems clear you put me in the "faith healing" camp. Notice, if you read my post, I never once put myself in any group. As I said, I withhold judgement. Again, this is an example of someone so strong in their beliefs they don't want to read anything that could possibly disagree with them carefully.)