Slashdot Mirror
The Unknown Newton
An anonymous reader writes "The unknown Newton -- The genius who gave us three laws of motion wrote even more about the Apocalypse and the Whore of Babylon. Eventually, all of his work -- about 10 million words -- will be on the Web.
Quote from the article:
'Yet if we go by sheer word count, physics was only one of Newton's intellectual priorities. He devoted more time to what we would now regard as non-scientific topics such as theology and alchemy, writing treatise after treatise on early church history and biblical prophecy.' An interesting note on Pythagoras and religion too. Should we consider ourselves 'Natural Philosphers' instead of Scientists?" Neal Stephenson fans may find this article a nice adjunct to Quicksilver.
Every person has their own thoughts on various topics. I wonder if it would "cheapen" our view of Newton by releasing these documents, or would we just discount them due to their age?
Colossians 2:8
There's also some interesting speculation as to whether or not he was gay -- here, there's less evidence one way or the other, but his nervous breakdown may have been caused by the ending of his relationship with a much younger man, Fatio de Duiller (?).
Find free books.
and today science is still a major source of philosophical debate, both directly e.g. consequences of quantum mechanics, cosmology... and indirectly e.g. cloning.
;-)
the very meaning of Ph.D. is quite a big hint too.
but I still consider myself a scientist because I think an important thing is that no matter how good your logic is and how nice your explanations are, it doesn't mean a thing if it's inconsistent with ***observations***.
mathematics is the subject for people who have great logic but don't concern themselves with it actually having any relevence to our own universe.
modern "pure philosophers" are people who don't care about their logic being relevent to this universe or any other!
Blaise Pascal is often credited as one of many historical figures responsible, in one way or another, for the development of modern computing. His mathematical achievements, similar to those of Newton, were only part of his preoccupation in life. His famous "Pensees" was a powerful treatise on Christian apologetics (i.e. defense of his faith), and as a philosopher he left a rich legacy to this day.
Like most great minds, Newton particulary did not do so well interacting with other people.
Some interesting Newton personality traits and tidbits can be found here.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
If Newton lived and philosophised under todays intellectual property reigeme we may not have calculus, especially since he has been credited as one of the founding fathers of this branch of maths. Would it be considered a patentable algorithm or process under todays US enforced laws? What would the world be like without free access to calculs?
Does it go on forever?
The fact that Newton worked with dozens of subjects outside of math and science is not surprising, since he was an INTP. Quite simply put. Once an INTP personality type masters a subject, it very likely they will move on to something else out of boredom.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
The bigger problem here is that lead is atomic number 82, and gold is atomic number 79 - you need to get the lead to yield up 3 protons - this is going to require an awful large amount of energy.
Some people claim to have pulled it off, however:
These are not chemical reactions though, which have always been the traditional target of the alchemists.
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
There's a bit of socio-scientific revisionism in the concept of the 'unknown' side of those like Newton. It's bizarre to see this 'unknown' meme pop up again and again, particularly because this side of Newton was most famously pointed out in the bestselling Holy Blood, Holy Grail" twenty years ago.
There's as much resistance to similar evidence about Boyd and Da Vinci, most of it due to ignorance about the 16th century mindset.
Hopefully the Newton Project will do something towards embedding a bit more realism into our historical perspective.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
>A combination of a good mind and a A-type-personality often makes someone excel in many areas.
Yeah sure, in business where social networking, dealing, etc are paramount, but most techies are introverts of some sort. Its these unsung heroes who really get the work done.
Then the coporate structure markets their work. There are exceptions of course, but a coder does not a good CEO make. Its the classic Jobs/Woz dynamic. There's a reason Ballmer is the CEO of Microsoft and not Bill anymore. He's just a better businessman. He's a better speaker. He's a better socializer. He's a better schmoozer. etc
So yes, the grandparent is quite correct. Someone can excel at one thing and be poor at everything else. Arguably, being a specialist is a gamble of sorts. You can excel at one thing, but if you don't do well or if the market drops out you're screwed, but if you're so specialized that only you can do something or come up with a new way of doing things then there are rewards to be had.
How many people view Chomsky's work on lingustics as groundbreaking but couldn't care less about his politics? How many Cerebus fans share Dave Sim's attitude regarding women? How many people, at the time, though Bucky Fuller's "beef only" diet was a good idea? etc
If i remember corectly Newton's first book Principia was published by a pornogrphy publisher, who could print it at a lower cost with money from Edmund Halley. All of this because the Royal Society had spent all the money in that year, for a nice fish ecyclopedia.
So \.-ers if you consume pornography you help the human kind to evolve.
Porn is good!
Wow, I love how people who passionately argue for the scientific method, jump to conclusions in a very unscientific way.
Oh please. Netwon lived in a time before the scientific method as we know it and before what eventually became the scientific community distanced itself and became aware of pseudo-scientific pursuits like astrology, prophecy, etc.
Can science tell you who you are? I don't mean some vauge descrition of being a bipedal primate, I mean telling you who YOU are? I noticed you convieniently left out philosophy out of your list. Do you discount philosophy in general?
Its not the 17/18th century anymore and your argument is a pretty weak strawman.
Is it? First, define how I was arguing anything. Next, define strawman, and assuming you're able to explain how I was arguing anything, explain how I strawmanned. I asked a question based upon my personal experience and resulting observation.
Essentially you are saying "Newton's physics were valid (ignoring Einstein) thus his other views are just as valid and deserve the same audience and respect."
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I was referring specifically to modding posts as flamebait when those posts weren't flamebait, they were just other people expressing ideas not embraced by the mainstream. I wish I had book marked those posts, there were two of them. What it basically boils down to is, todays science students, having taken a good deal of what they've learned on faith, especially with regards to things like the big bang, evolution, etc... have developed very closed minds and dogmatic adherence to what they have been taught. Now I'm arguing something, feel free to argue this back.
All the world's society's gave superstion more than the benefit of the doubt for millenia. It didn't pan out. Move on, don't complain that the book of Revelation or Alchemy or Phrenology deserves a 2nd chance. They have gotten more than their fair share of attention. Its not my fault or anyone else's these theories didn't pan out.
Weren't you just leveling accusations about straw manning? Please defend your deciscion here to assign me these beliefs and then attack me for them. Here's one scripture that just panned out: "Physician, heal thyself."
I also take slight offense at how you're saying its "hip" to be against these dead philosophies, when in reality its much more hip to be against those eggheads in their ivory towers who challenge traditional beliefs.
More straw manning. You read a volume into what I said and now are arguing against beliefs you assigned me, rather than taking issue with what I actually said. If you're offended, it's your own damned fault for assigning meaning not expressed. Not mine. I didn't say anything of the sort.
Its very hip for the religious to cry "Persecution!" when a science teacher mentions evolution or when a social studies teacher mentions different religions other than xtianity. I see it in the paper almost weekly. Yet you can join any religion you want, make your kids believe what you like, and religious organizations enjoy tax-free status, gambling rights, and a power-structure that protects them from criminal investigations (at least for a while).
And you know, I would be very inclined to agree with you to a large degree on many points, had you not presented this as my beliefs and set this up as a strawman for you to attack, acting like you're proving something against me. You have no clue at all what was said in the threads I was referring to. You don't seem to have understood that when I said "I personally believe evolution", I meant it.
I'll tell you what's never "hip" in my book, to use your terminology, closing your mind to the way other people believe because you happen to think the way you believe is superior. What understanding can be had of closing your mind to other people? Is it scientific? Isn't trying to understand what other people believe and whe
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
Nah, he'd be modded up to +5 almost every time.
Look what happens when John Carmack posts stuff (and I've absolutely nothing against JC, he's just an example of somebody famous.)
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Granted, I read a lot more into your dismissive tone about moderation and "groupthink" than anything else. I used that as a launch pad to post some things which apply to a lot of the comments in this thread. Instead of posting 10 comments I just took one and wrote out what I wanted, sorry if I used you as an example. You can translate my "you" to mean a lot of people arguing the same point you made which is pretty much something akin to "See, now who is the blind follower now?" When its pretty obvious that Newton's work in physics can be tested and falsified unlike his philosophical writings. Not to mention alchemy can be tested and fails (at least the part that later became chemistry). So to equate some kind of blind belief to those who know that Newtonian physics works isn't fair at all and bereting the slashdot community with conspiracy theories is pretty silly. Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes!
I mean, do we need another article about the time cube guy?
There's a large context here and I believe its how ideas go from no where to the mainstream. I like to think of LaBerge's work in lucid dreaming in the 80s. LD was considered either false (didnt happen or was just useless micro awakenings) or a philosophical issue (youre just dreaming youre awake while dreaming) but LaBerge worked at finding a experiment which would prove that lucid dreaming existed by fashioning an experiment that used eye control to prove that a lucid dreamer is really in control of the here and now. After being turned down by a few journals he got published here and there and others reproduced his work.
LaBerge isa good example because of how the New Age weirdos co-opted lucid dreaming and how he had to fight against preconceptions to prove his hypothesis. Yes, there were harsh criticisms and hard work involved, but that's the life of a researcher. Science does err on the side of caution but when enough evidence piles up against (or for) something then change happens. It happened to Newton with Einstein.
Or maybe its about how someone can be right in one area and wrong in another. Look at Thomas Gold or Chomsky's politics. History is full of people good at one thing who are wrong/controversial at another.
I wont even go into the irony of how your "moderators are bad" post is now rated at 5 points.
In the anime series The Vision of Escaflowne it is very strongly implied that the leader of the enemy forces, Emperor Dornkirk, is really Sir Isaac Newton, transported to the planet Gaea from his deathbed. In the series, Dornkirk/Newton is driven by a compulsion to understand and ultimately control fate, thinking it to be a natural force like gravity.
The series even claims that Newton was driven by this obsession with fate later in his life, but I've never seen anything to back this up, so I could never tell if this extraordinarily fanciful plot device was in any way based in fact, or if it was entirely created by the show's writers.
When you are a pioneer in science and discovery you need to go on roads that sound crazy and that maybe will get you nowhere. What was crazier to think at that time:
That it was possible to change lead into gold?
Or that in 300 years from then a bunch of strange libertarians will be discussing about the nature and validity of is work by using emitting light boxes connected by cables going thousands of kilometers around the globe and some time passing information through thin air?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
In addition to the problems with the Priory of Sion, he also gets most of the stuff about Opus Dei wrong (they also exist, you can look them up online), and the stuff about the Council of Nicea voting on Jesus divinity (there was a similar vote, but Da Vinci's book claimed it was "close" - it was actually 300 to 2 ). He also claims there were 5 million women burnt as witches, which is an impossibly high figure - even adding every single death (not just burnings) of both genders (and witchcraft was not, as now, a thing necessarily female), 5 million is still absurdly high. The interpretation of Da Vinci's work is also suspect - see the first link I posted for pictures of the Last Supper and commentry. I also was curious, and looked up the Madonna of the Rocks, but I couldn't see anything like what was described in the book.
The Da Vinci Code was an interesting read, but nobody who knows anything about the subject matter actually takes its claims seriously; even Holy Blood, Holy Grail which was intended(unlike TDVC) to be a non-fiction is taken with large amounts of scepticism.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
- -doesn't try to kill itself
- -takes care for others
- -knows about it's environment
- -knows how to deal with it properly
- -knows about its limitations
- -knows how to deal with them properly
? The only problem of the time that newton lived in was that people unaudited believed whatever was told to them by the ones being in power (which was back then the people calling themselves the church). They believed really strange things.Nowadays we're much advanced. We believe in what the guys in charge tell us. We believe every single word of crap coming out of the mouth of a scientist without checking it. We believe in evolution just because it fits our system of believe. Quantum theory, big bang and so on and so on. Without checking it. Just because "quantum" sounds so cool, so scientific, so just-shut-the-fuck-up-you-moron-i-know-better. We believe in what the doctors tell us. Take that little pill and everything will be fine. We believe psycoligists. We are so advanced we just believe in everything what we want to believe. And you call that advanced? I would call it degenerated. Because we still haven't learned whom to believe. We still haven't learned that believing is more than just repeating. We still haven't learned to go to the very one who can tell me who I am and to check if what he says is right and proves right. And yes, I believe in God, in Jesus, and in the bible. And yes, you still have to prove one single thing to be wrong of what God did and says or Jesus did and say or what the bible says. And don't come up with the stuff that the church or the priest of your confidence said. Prove it by your own prove.
I'm a natural philosopher. It says so on my degree certificate. At the older Scottish universities physics has always been called natural philosophy. When I was studying physics at school the text books were Nat Phil O (for Ordinary Grade) and Nat Phil 5 (for Higher Grade).
Sadly the Department of Natural Philosophy at Aberdeen University changed it's name to Physics sometime after I left.
Were there lots of Gospels and Pseudo-Gospels written in the Early Church? You bet. Did they all have an agenda? Again, you bet. Are they all reliable? Not by a long shot. There were all sorts of people making up gospels, ideas, and other whack things in the Early Church.
I'll admit that I haven't read the Da Vinci Code. I found out about it months after it was released, when I kept running across people that were espousing crazy ideas about the Early Church and those Medieval societies. Eventually, I learned where it was from, but still haven't read it. One thing I have noticed, though, is that every person I've seen who's been espousing the conspiratorial nonsense has also not read much, if any, primary source material on Christian history.
That's where this book comes in handy. It was written in the mid-second century in opposition to the movements that spawned most of those extra gospels. The TOC is here.
Other questions are such that, why are the societies that secretly kept the truth all Medieval? The Knights Templar goes back to the twelfth century. The PoS is a twentieth century group trying to claim its way back to the first century (and they aren't the first frauds to try that). This is a strong problem, because Christianity had already suffered two great divisions. In 481, many bishops and their churches seperated from the rest. These churches, the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, stretch from the Middle East to India, and they continue to exist to this day. In the ninth century, St. Photius and the Pope Nicholas II had an outing, which though repaired was made permanent in events in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and they hardly would have trusted Germanic societies like the KT in that era.
Prior to the First Schism, Christianity not only was not centralized, but could not be. The Pope had no universal jurisdiction. Simply put, it is impossible for a large conspiracy to take place to hide the truth so that secret societies had to take place. A non-centralized Christianity's response to these "gospels" was unified from India to Rome; it rejected them, largely because they were outside the normative teachings and practices (such as making Jesus a schoolyard bully) of the Church.
Proponents of conspiracy theories, such as I have found people getting from the Da Vinci Code must be able to explain how such a thing took place given the nature of early Christendom. And it must do so with sources of the era, sources on both sides of the issue. I can say this, because while I have not read the Da Vinci Code, I have read many Gnostic works, works from the Early Church, several Jewish Works from the centuries BC, pagan works from the era, etc. I haven't read them all, but I've read a good number. Likewise, I know several people, both those who are Christian and those who are not, who have. The single denominator I've seen in all of us is that we all laugh at the conspiracy theory nonsense.
I'm not meaning to be offensive, but the Da Vinci Code has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer. No, I haven't read the book, but I have come across many of its ideas repeated. It may be a good story, fiction-wise, but what I've heard repeated is nonsense factually. Will I read it? Maybe, but there are many more important things for me to read, such as books on computers and more early works, Christian, Gnostic, and pagan.