The Changing of the World: A Missed Opportunity?

[Paul S. Person]

Note: as always, it is possible that this idea is not, in fact, my
own. If you proposed it in the past, I am perfectly willing to abandon
any claim to originality. Feel free to state your claim, and be
acknowledged. Sad experience has taught me that unconscious but very
real plagiarism is far more likely than originality when one of these
"bright ideas" pops into my head.

This is going to sound very strange at first. Please keep in mind that
JRRT did /not/, so far as I know, think of this possibility.

Having just re-read the Akallabeth (in /TS/, as close to canon as it
can get), I am well-aware that the "changing of the world" is written
as applying exclusively to Arda, that is, the Earth.

A while back, as part of my reading of the /Great Books of the Western
World/, I read (in English translation) the /Principia/ of Newton. I
was surprised to find that the third section, which deals with
planetary motion, that is, with what we now call the Solar System, was
titled "The System of the World" (I tried to check this out first on
the Internet but got discordant data, so I am looking at the title
page of the version I read and that is what Part III has as a title).

This is a very old use of "world". What we would now call the Solar
System was encased in a large crystalline globe which either had
lights attached to it or was painted black except where the paint was
flecking off, revealing the divine light beyond, depending on how the
stars were conceived.

So this use of "world" is ultimately our "universe".

Suppose JRRT had adopted that meaning. In that case, the "changing of
the world" could become the complete transformation of Ea from a
Valar-created (in the uncounted depths of time and vast realms
unknown) to the universe as we (or, rather, Science) knows it today --
big bang, inllation, Dark Energy, and all.

There would be no need to rewrite the earlier myths to match modern
astronomy. Arda could remain a boat (as shown in /HOME/) until Eru
Iluvator changed it. No need for a massive canopy to reconcile Varda's
efforts with the modern view of the universe -- a sky with Varda's
stars hung in it could exist until Eru Iluvator changed it. And so on.

This would, of course, make the, what, 4000 years or so from the
Atalante to the Last Ship into the True West sometime in the Fourth
Age a sort of transition period, in which all remaining parts of the
old Arda (Sauron, Smaug, the Balrog, the Istari, the Elves, the Orcs
... the list goes on) were removed (or removed themselves), leaving
only Men in the changed universe -- our universe.

And, anyway, where would Valinor be located if the "changing of the
world" were really limited to Arda? A geostationary orbit, perhaps?
But if everything changes, then Valinor truly is located somewhere
else altogether.

[JimboCat]

Post by Paul S. Person
Note: as always, it is possible that this idea is not, in fact, my
own.

I think this has been proposed many times, actually, and it remains my favorite way of looking at it. But you're right: it is not JRRT's. Apparently, during his last years, he was planning to rewrite everything to make it more consistent with known physical law: a big mistake, IMHO!

To my way of thinking, a transcendent being like Eru - the very author of the universe - should indeed be able to change the fashion of the world, and make it look like it was that way from the start, too (or even do it entirely retro-actively, so it really WAS that way from the start). God CAN make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, if that's what He wants to do!

This basic idea is not limited to the works/worlds of Tolkien: in Walter M. Miller, Jr.'s _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, at the time when humans are just rediscovering science after a nuclear holocaust wiped out civilization, a Newton-like character encounters religious opposition, and is forced to admit that God must have changed the laws of physics after The Flood, since the physics of light that he had (re)discovered implied that rainbows were a natural consequence of rain and sun rather than a message from the deity, as stated in the Bible.

As far as I know, Newton had no such interference from the inquisition in our actual history, though.

JimboCat

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:24:47 -0800 (PST), JimboCat

Post by JimboCat

Post by Paul S. Person
Note: as always, it is possible that this idea is not, in fact, my
own.

I think this has been proposed many times, actually, and it remains my favorite way of looking at it. But you're right: it is not JRRT's. Apparently, during his last years, he was planning to rewrite everything to make it more consistent with known physical law: a big mistake, IMHO!
To my way of thinking, a transcendent being like Eru - the very author of the universe - should indeed be able to change the fashion of the world, and make it look like it was that way from the start, too (or even do it entirely retro-actively, so it really WAS that way from the start). God CAN make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, if that's what He wants to do!

Actually, Aquinas points out in the /Summa/ that "omnipotence" only
applies to /things/, and then defines "things" as, essentially,
anything that actually does [or did] exist or potentially could exist.

Since the whole point of a logical paradox, such as "a stone so heavy
he can't lift it" is that it cannot exist, even potentially, it is not
a "thing" and so omnipotence does not apply to it.

The Hebrew for "omnipotence" occurs in English as "Almighty", and
denotes physical strength and extreme violence, and so presumably
relates more to God as protector or as guarantor of military victory.
The Greek "pantokrator" has a political tinge -- democracy and
aristocracy both include "krator" -- and so relates more obviously to
God as ruler than general control. Only in Latin do we have a word
that can definitely mean "power over everything".

Of course, the doctrine of creation from nothing pretty much implies
power over everything. Keeping in mind what "thing" means, as noted
above.

Post by JimboCat
This basic idea is not limited to the works/worlds of Tolkien: in Walter M. Miller, Jr.'s _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, at the time when humans are just rediscovering science after a nuclear holocaust wiped out civilization, a Newton-like character encounters religious opposition, and is forced to admit that God must have changed the laws of physics after The Flood, since the physics of light that he had (re)discovered implied that rainbows were a natural consequence of rain and sun rather than a message from the deity, as stated in the Bible.

Although the story of the Flood /can/ be interpreted that way, it need
not be: that is, God may merely be saying that, in the future, He will
use His bow to remind him of his promise.

Then again, it might: God doesn't actually give people the right to
eat other animals until He finds the smell of burning fat particularly
pleasing, so, arguably, the theory is that, up to that time, people
were herbivores. So it could be that we are to understand that their
were no rainbows until God repented of his decision to destroy all the
carbon-based life-forms infesting the Earth (at least the ones on
land).

Post by JimboCat
As far as I know, Newton had no such interference from the inquisition in our actual history, though.

Probably because they read their Bibles correctly. Or just never
realized the implication of Newton's theory.

I recently read a Nebula-winning novel /The Terminal Experiment/ in
which the author (Robert Sawyer) asserts that Aquinas approved of
abortions through (IIRC) the 5th week for boys and 3 months for girls,
because, before those times, the soul had not entered the body.

This is of course unlikely. Opposition to abortion has always been an
intrinsic part of traditional family values -- not, as at present,
because the fetus was regarded as a human being but rather because it
deprived the father of his rightful property: the child. It was, IOW,
condemned as a form of theft.

And, anyway, without ultrasound, there was no way to tell what was
coming until it popped out.

But Aquinas /may/ have given times for when souls enter bodies. I
don't happen to recall it from when I read the /Summa/, or the bulk of
it (the part in the /Great Books of the Western World/) but that isn't
all he wrote (indeed, the /Summa/ ends with a copy of material clearly
taken from another work). It might, for example, have been intended
for use in cases of miscarriage following a physical attack, to
determine if the attacker had killed a human being or not by the sex
and age of the result of the miscarriage.

Of course, it should be kept in mind that these are works of fiction,
and that the authors are free to attribute whatever they like to
whatever source they please -- and that these errors are attributed to
fictional characters and may not be what the author believes anyway.

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:24:47 -0800 (PST), JimboCat

Post by JimboCat
To my way of thinking, a transcendent being like Eru - the very
author of the universe - should indeed be able to change the
fashion of the world, and make it look like it was that way
from the start, too (or even do it entirely retro-actively, so
it really WAS that way from the start). God CAN make a stone so
heavy that he can't lift it, if that's what He wants to do!

Actually, Aquinas points out in the /Summa/ that "omnipotence" only
applies to /things/, and then defines "things" as, essentially,
anything that actually does [or did] exist or potentially could exist.
Since the whole point of a logical paradox, such as "a stone so heavy
he can't lift it" is that it cannot exist, even potentially, it is not
a "thing" and so omnipotence does not apply to it.

C.S. Lewis explained it this way in "The Problem of Pain:"

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically
possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may
attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit
to His power.

If you choose to say, "God can give a creature free will and at
the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded
in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words
do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them
the two other words, "God can."

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the
intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is
no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures
to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives;
not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense
remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

[JJ]

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by JimboCat
As far as I know, Newton had no such interference from the inquisition in our actual history, though.

Probably because they read their Bibles correctly. Or just never
realized the implication of Newton's theory.

More probably because Newton lived in a Protestant country, where there was no inquisition!

[Paul S. Person]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 04:13:53 -0800 (PST), JJ

Post by JJ

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by JimboCat
As far as I know, Newton had no such interference from the inquisition in our actual history, though.

Probably because they read their Bibles correctly. Or just never
realized the implication of Newton's theory.

More probably because Newton lived in a Protestant country, where there was no inquisition!

I was interpreting "the inquisition" more broadly than just the
activities of the Holy Office.

At some time in the past, I was told that Newton waited on publishing
the /Principia/ because Descartes had savaged him after his work on
optics appeared. The story was that Descartes felt it was
counter-productive to arrange experiments which showed different
results from what his (Descartes') massive brain had reasoned from
first principles. Or something like that.