Happy Birthday Copernicus!
To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge. ~ Nicolaus Copernicus
Born Feb 19, 1473 – Died May 24, 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who’s heliocentric theory first proposed a mathematical model of the solar system with the sun at its center as opposed to the Earth. Copernicus along with Galileo Gallilee and Johannes Kepler are generally considered the fathers of modern astronomy. The publications, in 1543, of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), along with Andreas Vesalius‘s De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body) is often cited as marking the beginning of the Scientific Revolution.
Andreas Cellarius‘s illustration of the Copernican system, from the Harmonia Macrocosmica (1660).
What a treasure this Blog is. I always learn something and I love that
February 19, 2013 at 8:41 am
That’s a huge compliment, and thank you!
February 19, 2013 at 10:07 am
Happy Birthday, Nic!
Immanuel Kant, who contributed some revolutionary, if still confusing, elements to philosophy referred to that contribution as a “Copernican Revolution.”
And many don’t know that the philosopher Kant also made some important contributions to physics. He predicted that the solar system formed from a large cloud of gas (in 1755). IIRC he also suggested that tidal drag was slowing down the Earth’s rotation.
February 19, 2013 at 8:53 am
Kant was certainly an interesting thinker, and like much of philosophy I agree with some of what’s been attributed to him, and I disagree with some. I disagree with his ‘categorical imperative’ that there is a single moral obligation, but I do agree with his philosophy that one should think autonomously – which I assume would mean he’d have no qualms with my disagreeing with him. I’m wondering if he utilized the term Copernican Revolution to attach more importance to his work – which he certainly did not have to do.
I had no idea as to his works in physics, but it doesn’t surprise me at all. Historically, great thinkers tended to be quite a bit more polymathic, such as Copernicus, then the highly specialized thinkers of today.
February 19, 2013 at 10:36 am
Bingo, exactly! That’s what hangs me up (about Kant), too. His entire morality is based on the premise of Universal Will, and I don’t buy that so….[shrug] Personally I don’t believe it’s possible to define morality philosophically or logically. Every philosopher who goes after it gets either mired in muck or ends up saying, “Well, ya just know it when you see it.”
Yeah,… like Art. Or porn.
February 19, 2013 at 6:17 pm
The ‘Or porn’ part made me laugh, cus well…porn is just damn funny. But I see your point, and agree somewhat. So, if not philosophically, and by this I’m assuming you also mean religiously, or logically, how does one define morality?
February 20, 2013 at 8:05 am
That’s a several evenings over beer topic that I’m not sure I can do justice to in comment size. But I’ll try. I’m going to jump below to a new comment to get as much elbow room as possible! See you there…
February 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm
I agree, it IS a several evenings over beer, or even tequila, topic. Thanks for trying, and thanks for the jump –I’ll reply shortly!
February 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Tequila! A woman after my own heart!!
February 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm
February 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Very nice.
February 19, 2013 at 8:54 am
Thanks
February 19, 2013 at 10:07 am
The opening quote of that video is brilliant.
It’s a pity that Copernicus is not more widely know, or celebrated,
February 19, 2013 at 12:14 pm
He reconfigured not only our world, but our place in the universe. A very, very, unpopular thing to do at the time and for SO many reasons Guapo. And kudos to Google for their awesome tribute in Doodle form…
February 19, 2013 at 6:17 pm
And the more we know, the more we know we don’t know, if I may be so bold as to add to Copernicus’ thoughtful words.
February 19, 2013 at 1:18 pm
You just did Pat, and quite correctly. And to me, it’s very inspiring to know I’ll never run out of things I don’t know.
February 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm
I learn so much when I visit your blog! Beautiful pictures too. Thank you
February 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Thank YOU! One of the very coolest things about learning is the part when one gets to share it.
February 19, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Ah ha! I’m just getting round to reading your post now and it explains your comment on my blog earlier. Spooky-woo!!!
February 19, 2013 at 7:33 pm
LOL! And I assume you’re not referring to the knee cap thing.
February 20, 2013 at 7:59 am
Now now, you know you know you know
February 20, 2013 at 10:48 am
….I think I know…
February 20, 2013 at 10:57 am
Good tribute to a worthy scholar. I never knew he was Polish.
February 20, 2013 at 5:48 am
Good morning Frank, I’m glad you enjoyed it!
February 20, 2013 at 7:59 am
I distinguish between philosophy, logic and religion. As I place them, logic is a (mathematical) tool used in many branches of science (philosophy being one many scientists sadly ignore). Religion (as a study) is considered a branch of philosophy, but as a practice, to me, it’s (at the least) an apparently core human drive. And I define spirituality as a pursuit of the underlying truth of religion without the historical and sociopolitical trappings.
I also distinguish between morals and ethics. The latter can be based on logic and, in fact, to me that is the difference. There are business ethics, but human morals.
In my view, morality is strictly a function of religion and spirituality. I do not believe it is possible to define morality in a mechanistic (let alone fully deterministic) universe. To start at one extreme, in a fully deterministic universe, there is no free will, and morality is no more possible than for gears in a clock. If the universe is not fully deterministic (i.e. choice is possible), but mechanistic (no gods), I argue that morality is still an empty concept.
The problem I see is that morality is based on the presumption of equality among humans. Those who feel moral about animals (PETA and many vegans) extend that presumption to animals. But what is the grounding of the presumption? Humans are clearly different in every other regard; what makes them equal morally? I find no answer to that question in a mechanistic universe.
Oh, sure, I can will that it is so, but my will is opinion. Here’s a use case for you: what’s more important, the 4500-year-old Wonder of the World we call The Pyramids, or all those long-dead slaves who were necessary to build them? The suffering of those slaves is long over, ancient dust; the pyramids remain. Which is more important. And why?
Absent some belief that there is more to this than just this, the only grounding for human equality is wishful thinking. Which doesn’t make it bad or unnecessary. Justice is also something we made up. So is every law on every book; none of them reflect physics.
The only way I can ground human equality is in a spiritual belief about the specialness of human thought and life. Many animals are conscious, and a few are highly intelligent, but there still seems a pretty big gap between them and us. I believe it is that something special that causes that gap, and it is upon that something special I hang morality. (So I’m philosophically a Dualist, at the least a Cartesian Dualist with strong Aristotelian leanings.)
I also, therefore, do not believe we will ever build Star Trek’s Data. No machine will ever have a mind. I disagree completely with Ray Kurzweil!
February 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm
I asked you, in a way, to define morality and you, in a way, did. Since this debate has been going on long before you or I existed, and will no doubt continue long after we cease to do so, I’m sure you’ll take no exception to my disagreeing with you. I do see how it could all simply come down to semantics.
When you refer to yourself as a Cartesian Dualist am I correct to assume you mean in the sense of Descartes’ thought of the mind being a nonphysical substance, sort of a immaterial spirit? ‘Trust me’ when I say I am in no way a student of philosophical studies, a fact which, I’m sure, illustrates itself with every word I write. Nor do I subscribe to any one school of philosophical thought, as they do seem to overlap. (I’ll take a bite out of anything which tastes good, two bites if it tastes particularly good). This said, I do have serious doubts as to humans having a specialness, or as you write; the ‘gap’ between human and other animals. Is this gap the same as Descartes’ immaterial spirit, and if so, at which point during the course of our evolution did we gain possession of this spirit? Also, does my saying I agree, to a large degree, with Spinoza equate to my being completely lacking in morality?
February 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Well all I can say, after all of this is….boy am I stupid…
February 20, 2013 at 4:19 pm
LOL! Welcome to the club!
We should print up some T shirts!
February 20, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Definitely! We sell a trillion!
February 20, 2013 at 5:47 pm
At least!
February 22, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Yes, I think morality is almost trivial to define in a spiritual context, either as “God’s Law” (batteries included) or as based on the equality of human life and thought (some assembly required). And, of course, my point was that, absent spiritual grounding, it’s a challenge that, as you say, is long-running in both time directions.
Two very important points: (1) Do not consider me at all expert in philosophy! I’m just an interested amateur. (B) I love it when people disagree with me; it gives us something to talk about. I love knowing why other people think they way they do, and interacting with others’ opinions has informed my own. And particularly on topics such as this, I’m not sure there is a “right” answer, let alone one of mine!
You are correct about Dualism. It’s one of the great mysteries of existence. We all experience consciousness; we have no idea what it is. We have no idea why that lump of neurons gives rise to that inner “I” of consciousness. Descartes divided material brain from immaterial mind, but his idea of mind is still a non-spiritual one. Aristotle was also a Dualist, but he ascribed mind to the soul. As I mentioned I have some leanings in that direction.
I think one should always treat life as a smörgåsbord! A little of this, a little of that. And extra dessert. (I had a similar ethic to your bite of this, bite of that. I always said I’ll try anything once…. twice if I like it.)
Which bits of Spinoza do you like? His key idea, as I understand it, is that god is everything and everything is god. He didn’t believe in free will, since everything that happens is meant to happen by god (because everything is god). He also thought god and nature were just two words for the same thing, but that thing (“substance”) was what everything is made of.
AIUI, he thought our goal was to understand that vast universal picture and our place in it. A key to understanding human suffering (all ordained by god and proceeding to plan) was to recognize our tiny, tiny role in the vastness. That is something that has comforted me at times, although it kind of assumes a teleological universe.
The “gap” I mentioned does have to do with our minds, which are clearly different from any animals’ minds, but Descartes idea is just one way to look at it. Some (Kurzweil at the head of the line) believe mind is just something that brains do; it’s purely mechanistic. The religious or spiritual view is that it’s a gift from god, a soul. Roger Penrose has floated the idea of quantum effects in the brain. Many ideas; no one knows.
Where did it come along in us? I don’t know. Maybe the first time we looked up at the stars and felt awe. There’s no evolutionary basis for that I can imagine. We revere physical beauty for evolutionary reasons, but stars?
What I felt the first time I looked through a telescope and photons that had made their way from the sun, bounced off the rings of Saturn and then made their way back into my eye… the memory gives me goosebumps… the event itself was profound. In a sense, right there I felt that Spinozan place in the universe. I was connected. I, no fooling, lost the power of speech for several minutes and wept tears of joy and awe.
February 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm
I’m late to the party…but Happy Birthday Copernicus! (interesting discussions in the comments – I enjoyed reading those, too!)
February 21, 2013 at 8:03 am
Very Chica! And you’re NEVER late….
February 21, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Man, that dude is old.
February 21, 2013 at 10:41 am
True Eric, but you must admit he looks fabulous!
February 21, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Not bad for his age!
February 21, 2013 at 2:41 pm
I could only hope you look as good Eric
February 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm
I love this blog!
February 21, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Wow! And I love that comment!
Thanks, Richard.
February 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm
…and there was I thinking that Donald Rumsfeld was the originatr of the “we don’t know what we don’t now….”
February 22, 2013 at 10:21 am
I know, Bill….right? I mean I know there are known knowns, and known unknowns, and unknown knowns…wait…ok, now I need coffee….
February 22, 2013 at 2:54 pm