I recently finished the brilliant popular scientific book “Primum Mobile” by Prof. Dr. Bruno Binggeli, an astrophysicist who claims that there are many, many analogies between modern cosmology (the study of the physical universe, its structure, dynamics, origin and evolution, and fate) and the medieval world view as presented in Dante’s Devine Comedy, the poetic masterpiece of the Renaissance. According to him these extraordinary parallels stem (partly) from the fact that our human mind has been shaped by our environment and the night sky in particular since the dawn of mankind. To list up some of the analogies:

Primum mobile → Big Bang
angels → photons
evil → gravity
hell → Black Hole
scientific aspirations → religious striving

Furthermore, he states that the average citizen has the obsolete 19th century world view of an endless, almost mechanic universe which has been invalidated by quantum physics. So should we get used to thinking like this again?

Discuss.

I don't know about anyone else, but I rather like gravity - I mean its really rather a nice thing that keeps it all in order. I mean without gravity I'd have a seriously hard time keeping my feet on the ground in discussions like this.

Primum Mobile and Big Bang is the only one of those analogies that makes the slightest bit of sense to me. Why is gravity evil?

....if those are honestly some of the parallels he draws, in that list you have there, then there's nothing he says to take seriously. That comes across like a high school student bullshitting his way through a research paper the night before it's due.

It’s fun how quick you are to judge the sophisticated thoughts (which matured over years) of someone who is obviously so much more intelligent than we are without even asking what exactly the analogies consist in. Well, not that it surprises me. Because if you assume that the state before the Big Bang was God in His totality then and the Big Bang is the act of creation then gravity would be the first of the four forces to emerge — or as he puts it, secede. So the formation of gravitiy would be analogous to Lucifer’s betrayal.

If anyone wants me to go into detail now is the time since I still have the book next to me.

Yeah but er --- gravity is still rather a nice thing, wouldn't you agree? I mean without it, well, you wouldn't be much. Sounds more like the guy is just stringing random bits to other bits and making a conclusion that isn't quite as well thought through as he thinks it is No, I think the time is to put that book down and broaden ones influences a little wider

Almost sounds like a concept that evolved around a table in a pub after a few jugs...

I'm no expert, but my understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that there is no 'before' the Big Bang since time itself was created at the Big Bang. Steven Hawking compared discussing what came before the Big Bang to discussing what lies North of the North Pole. This part of the analogy would seem to contradict modern scientific theory. The book could well be a work of genius, but that's not the impression you're giving. It's not exactly clear what the point of these analogies is.

I think you misunderstand the concept of evil at that time. But even then you should realize that evil is an integral part of human life.

Oh and hi there, lukipela. Down to -4, I see? I didn’t even know the rep has a negative scale as well.

Maybe, but gravity isn't a human unique influence - its rather critical to most of existence existing (and if God made everything that exists gravity must have factored into things more than one angel having a bit of spat with him and getting kicked out).

As for the nature of evil - I still think this reads like a physicist trying to crack into the historical mythological arts. Which probably means he's given to reading far more of the higher level physics (that most of us don't know) in things that, most likely, have no actual basis within it.

Exactly! This is also what he says. And God too is something you can’t comprehend. The “before” was not meant in a temporal way but rather in a conceptual one. Argh, stuff like that is hard to express in a foreign language.

That might be the case. And the point of these analogies is to conciliate modern science and the arts since they are, as he puts it, two ways of grasping the same reality. And the similarities he lists are really impressive. So as I said, go on and ask me about them. Perhaps you’ll change your minds from “Random bits put together to look like it makes one big sense” to “Wow, fuck me, that does look a lot alike”.

Science and religion have always gone more hand in hand than most atheists would want to believe (remembering that atheists believe in not believing in God ;)). This is mostly because of two key factors:

1) Most religions were based on the explanation and understanding of the heavens themselves - ergo your basic astrology.

2) In the past almost all the really well educated people were religious themselves (either part of religious orders/groups or in devout societies). Even during the birth of science in the Victorian era, many of the strongest scientists were also very religious people - something you can clearly see in their studies of the natural world which were hampered and tailored by their religion.


The fact that this pattern exists is not a new revelation in itself, nor is it an unexpected turn. It is however, something that can be abused if taken too far and is also highly susceptible to being twisted since our understanding of past times is sketchy at best and based of proxy and written records only. Large bodies of fact remain missing in many ages, whilst also we must remember that written details might reflect an understanding of a time, but will not tell the whole story of that age.

So... my prince is gravity, then? :-P

On a more serious note, I get what you're saying. Qabalah (by whatever spelling and tradition you choose) works with similar concepts in regards to the formation of both the objective and subjective universes. That said, don't expect much useful discussion of such here at the GOG forum.

I'd be up for greater detail, perhaps, but it nears time for me clock-out and go home. Anyways, don't let a cynical reception get to you. :-)

There was no time before Big Bang in our universe, no.

However, if our universe is simply one of an infinite number of universes in the n-dimensional multiverse, then there would indeed have been a 'before' the Big Bang - possibly 'our' Big Bang occured because of interactions with other universes.

Like, two pre-existing universes, each contained within a spacetime 'bubble' in the multiverse, colliding, and our universe being spawned as an effect of the collision.

These universes already existed, but our time started at the time of collision, 'our' Big Bang.

Hope that clears it up. :P

God is by definition something you cannot comprehemd. Similar, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle prevents us from grasping the very gist of reality on a microcosmic scale while the Big Bang prevents this on a macrocosmic scale. It’s no coincidence that the greatest scientists of mankind (e.g. Einstein) believed and believe in God (mind you, not necessarily a Christian one). To put it with Heisenberg himself: “When you first drink from the glass of science you turn into an Atheist, but at the bottom of the glass waits god.”

Again, you don’t seem to know the medieval world view very well. Have you ever read the Devine Comedy? Or at least seen Botticelli’s illustrations? Should I elucidate this?

Yes, sounds about right ...

... and now you lost me. What has no actual basis? Higher level physics?