History, Its Arc, Its Tangents

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: History, Its Arc, Its Tangents : 1
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/12/18/history-its-arc-its-tangents-%e2%80%a2-1/

Re: Renaissance Mathematicus ( https://thonyc.wordpress.com/about/ )
::: Both Sides of History (
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2019/12/18/both-sides-of-history-some-thoughts-on-a-history-of-science-cliche/ )

> I do not pretend to understand the moral universe;
> the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways;
> I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by
> the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience.
> And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.
>
> -- Theodore Parker ( https://books.google.com/books?id=eHgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false )

I think we are dealing with the scientific analogue of the moral figure above. To inquire is to act as if inquiry
pursued far enough will end in truth. It's a regulative principle, not a dogma, but a regulative principle is akin to a
leap of faith. Here we have a parting of the ways between those who think the end is near what we think we already know
and those who think it's more likely further down the road. The two camps sort past and present ideas according to each
one's guess what the future holds.

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: History, Its Arc, Its Tangents : 2
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/12/25/history-its-arc-its-tangents-%e2%80%a2-2/

Re: Renaissance Mathematicus ( https://thonyc.wordpress.com/about/ )
::: Both Sides of History (
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2019/12/18/both-sides-of-history-some-thoughts-on-a-history-of-science-cliche/ )

Are there watersheds in the history of science?
Is there a continental divide between basins of right and wrong ideas?
I was pondering these questions when one of my favorite passages from Leibniz came again to mind.

<QUOTE>
The Present Is Big With The Future
==================================
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/04/01/the-present-is-big-with-the-future/

Now that I have proved sufficiently that everything comes to pass according to determinate reasons, there cannot be any
more difficulty over these principles of God's foreknowledge. Although these determinations do not compel, they cannot
but be certain, and they foreshadow what shall happen.

It is true that God sees all at once the whole sequence of this universe, when he chooses it, and that thus he has no
need of the connexion of effects and causes in order to foresee these effects. But since his wisdom causes him to
choose a sequence in perfect connexion, he cannot but see one part of the sequence in the other.

It is one of the rules of my system of general harmony, that the present is big with the future, and that he who sees
all sees in that which is that which shall be.

What is more, I have proved conclusively that God sees in each portion of the universe the whole universe, owing to the
perfect connexion of things. He is infinitely more discerning than Pythagoras, who judged the height of Hercules by the
size of his footprint. There must therefore be no doubt that effects follow their causes determinately, in spite of
contingency and even of freedom, which nevertheless exist together with certainty or determination.
</QUOTE>

Right or wrong side of history?

On the one hand it envisions a thoroughgoing determinism. On the other hand it foreshadows latter-day ideas about a
holographic universe. And it does all this while laying out its own theory of history, whose core idea is the germ of
the differential calculus.

Reference
=========

* Gottfried Wilhelm (Freiherr von) Leibniz, Theodicy : Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin
of Evil, edited with an introduction by Austin Farrer, translated by E.M. Huggard from C.J. Gerhardt's edition of the
Collected Philosophical Works, 1875???1890. Routledge 1951. Open Court 1985. Paragraph 360, page 341.