Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2538135" data-attributes="member: 7240">But it's important that we don't apply modern principles of scientific thought to this model. Aristotle's work was in the discipline of Physical Astronomy (how the universe is) whereas Ptolemy's work was in the discipline of Mathematical Astronomy (how the universe works). Ptolemy's calculations were to say "the universe works as though it's made like this"; Aristotle's a priori assertions were to say, "this is the true nature of the universe." Thus, while everybody had to use epicycles, retrogrades, etc. to do calculations in Ptolemy's model, everybody doing these calculations also believed the spheres were impenetrable. Basically, the mathematical model was a lower grade of truth (true nevertheless for its own limited purposes) than the philosophical model. Thus a Ptolmaic astronomer in the Middle Ages and, probably even Ptolemy himself would have happily credited that the spheres were impenetrable even while using epicycles and the like to make predictive calculations.But these were never conceptualized as spheres at all. The point is that everything in the lowest sphere was made of corruptible elements whereas the spheres beyond were made of the fifth, perfect element, quintessence. The perfection of the quintessence is the reason the spheres were physically impenetrable by the four lowly terrestrial elements and why the only entities that could exist beyond the spheres were angels.No. Absolutely not. Nothing made out of terrestrial elements exists outside the sublunar sphere.This is not Aristotelian per se in that:(a) there is only one earth and set of spheres in his theory of the universe(b) the properties of fixity and incorruptibility are much more appropriately applied to the nucleus in the atomic model whereas in the Aristotelian model, these properties are best applied to the outer spheres(c) if the area outside the sublunar sphere is inhabited, it is logically necessary that it be inhabited by perfect beings and not be earth-like ie. corruptibleThat's not to say I don't like your model but it seems fair to say your proposed universe is Ptolemaic rather than Aristotelian.I think in the Norse and Aztec ones, the gods are on top and we're in the middle but I'm betting that because of Platonic influence, the Cabalistic models are more likely to put us on the bottom and God on top. If you're interested in vertical cosmological schemes like this, I highly recommend the 1950s book (now outdated) book on Nahua (Aztec) mythology called Firefly in the Night. Nicholson's inappropriate rationalization of their cosmological scheme sounds like a very nice fit with what you're doing.Here, you're doing what many medievals and early moderns did: hybridizing Aristotle and Plato. Just be aware you're doing it. The Cabalistic/Gnostic/Sufic idea of emmanations assumes that as things get closer to God, they get less corporeal and that the physical world is so intrinsically inferior that no physical travel could get you to such a destination. Anyway, have fun!</blockquote>

Verification