What did he make of those problems? Newton declined to commit his beliefs to publication, but an interesting summary survives thanks to a relative of his.
It’s also interesting for why it’s wrong: Newton needs comets to be at least planet-sized, because comets are too rare to be plausibly fuel sources for the Sun if they’re small (they wouldn’t dump enough fuel in to keep combustion going for another few decades/centuries until the next big comet, as astronomical records since the Babylonians constrained big comets to be highly infrequent), but of course they’re very small; if they were planet-sized, you’d think they’d severely disturb planetary orbital calculations, so was the existing astronomical data insufficiently precise to prove the absence of such orbital disturbances or was there some other issue?
The anthropic/mediocrity argument for the short duration of the human race is also wrong, since we know anatomically modern & presumably equally intelligent humans have been around for at least 50,000 years at this point, with human civilization developing only in the last small fraction. What’s particularly interesting about his argument is that if he had made it at a truly randomly chosen point in human history (picked at random from, say, 50,000 BC to 2019 AD), then he would have correctly concluded the opposite, that the human race was ancient, due to the lack of any discernible progress in the recent past (‘progress’ having not yet been invented): in fact, he could only have made this argument in a tiny window between the start of the Scientific/Industrial Revolution and the archaeological/geological/evolutionary proof of mankind’s antiquity starting around the 1800s, so maybe 400 years or 0.4 millennia; he had to have the bad luck to be born into that exact 0.8% historical window for the argument from progress to be convincing & wrong! Remarkable.
Newton was not the only one to notice how unusual a period he lived in; Girolamo Cardano noted something similar ~150 years prior in his 1575451ya autobiography The Book Of My Life, although since it is in a chapter sub-headed “Concerning Natural Though Rare Circumstances of My Own Life”, he appears to have bitten the bullet of believing himself lucky. The Italian astrologer Tommaso Campanella, writing a 1602424ya utopian tract while imprisoned for organizing a Spanish revolution to bring about a new age (which he would die believing imminent), finishes with his European interlocutor saying, “Oh, if you knew what our astrologers say of the coming age, and of our age, that has in it more history within 100 years than all the world had in 4,000 years before! of the wonderful inventions of printing and guns, and the use of the magnet, and how it all comes of Mercury, Mars, the Moon, and the Scorpion!”
I wonder if Newton’s belief that he was merely rediscovering what the ancients like the Chaldeans or King Solomon knew, a conviction closely connected to his Biblical & alchemical research, is connected to this ‘recent progress’ argument, as it could also be taken as evidence for humanity existing for a long time but in constant cycles of rise and fall, implying the possibility of many cycles of knowledge being esoterically encoded into the most ancient writings & ideologies?
If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders [sic] of Giants.
It is possible Robert Hooke and Edmund Halley held similar views, particularly in connection to Noah’s deluge. Moynihan highlights from Edmund Halley’s “Some Considerations about the Cause of the Universal deluge, laid before the Royal Society, Dec. 12, 1694”, but published only 30 years later in 1724302ya:
Dr. Hook’s Solution of this Problem, as he has not fully discovered [ie. explained or published] himself, I cannot undertake to judge of…But the Almighty generally making use of natural means to bring about his will, Dr. H. thought it not amiss to give the society an account of some thoughts that occurred to him on this subject; wherein, says he, if I err, I shall find myself in very good company.
…the causal shock of a comet…would occasion the sea to recede…the recoil of this heap of waters would return towards the opposite parts of the earth…That some such thing has happened, may be guessed, as the earth seems as if it were new made out of the ruins of an old world…
N.B. The foregoing papers having been read before the Society 30 years ago were then deposited by their author in their Archives, and not published; he being sensible that he might have adventured ultra crepidam; and apprehensive lest by some unguarded expression he might incur the censure of the Sacred Order. Nor had they now been printed, but at the desire of a late Committee of the Society, who were pleased to think them not unworthy the press.
Interestingly, it seems the ‘short human history’ argument is not original to Newton, and has been used elsewhere to defend the eternity of the world (a position made tricky if indeed humans only came into existence recently) because I came across a version of it in Lucretius’s On the Nature of Things:
Moreover, if heaven and earth never had a beginning or birth, but have existed from everlasting, why have there not been other poets to sing of other events prior to the Theban war and the tragedy of Troy? Why have so many heroic deeds so often been buried in oblivion, instead of flowering somewhere, implanted in eternal memorials of fame? The true explanation, in my judgment, is that our world is in its youth: it was not created long ago, but is of comparatively recent origin. That is why at the present time some arts are still being refined, still being developed. This age has seen many improvements in shipbuilding; it is not long since musicians first molded melodious tunes; our system of philosophy too is a recent invention, and I myself am found to be the very first with the ability to expound it in the language of my country [Latin].
If by chance you believe that all these same things happened before, but that the races of human beings perished in a great conflagration, or that their cities were razed by a mighty convulsion of the world, or that rivers, rapacious after unremitting rains, inundated the earth and submerged towns, there is all the more necessity for you to admit defeat and acknowledge that heaven and earth are destined to be destroyed.
Lucretius’s argument is not quite the same, as he equivocates on whether intelligent species/humans go in cycles of creation & destruction (which appears to be Newton’s take) or if the universe is simply of recent date (which would, incidentally, be consistent with a literalist Biblical take in which recent progress is because the world & humanity were created only recently, per Genesis); his goal is to convince the reader that Heaven & Earth are not eternal and will perish, and it is unimportant if the world is young or old with cycles. But the latter is clearly the same idea as Newton’s: given the fact of recent progress in (apparently) low-hanging fruit like composing epics or inventing needles, this implies either that ‘contemporary’ human civilization is itself of recent origin (in some sense) or that progress only began recently for no good reason. But “one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens” and the latter is absurd, so they reject it and accept the other possibility.
Another argument, defending Lucretius on different grounds, is provided by Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy II.5 (“The Changes Of Religion And Of Languages, Together With The Occurrence Of Deluges And Pestilences, Destroy The Record Of Things”) in which he defends eternalism by arguing that we should not expect any trustworthy records because political/religious movements regularly destroy all ancient things (eg. the Burning of books and burying of scholars) every few thousand years, and then particularly extreme disasters wipe out humans every few tens to hundreds of thousands of years:
To those philosophers who maintain that the world has existed from eternity, we might reply, that, if it were really of such antiquity, there would reasonably be some record beyond 5,000 years, were it not that we see how the records of time are destroyed by various causes, some being the acts of men and some of Heaven. Those that are the acts of men are the changes of religion and of language; for when a new sect springs up, that is to say a new religion, the first effort is (by way of asserting itself and gaining influence) to destroy the old or existing one; and when it happens that the founders of the new religion speak a different language, then the destruction of the old religion is easily effected. This we know from observing the proceedings of the Christians against the heathen religion; for they destroyed all its institutions and all its ceremonies, and effaced all record of the ancient theology. It is true that they did not succeed in destroying entirely the record of the glorious deeds of the illustrious men of the ancient creed, for they were forced to keep up the Latin language by the necessity of writing their new laws in that tongue; but if they could have written them in a new language (bearing in mind their other persecutions), there would have been no record whatever left of preceding events. Whoever reads the proceedings of St. Gregory, and of the other heads of the Christian religion, will see with what obstinacy they persecuted all ancient memorials, burning the works of the historians and of the poets, destroying the statues and images and despoiling everything else that gave but an indication of antiquity. So that, if they had added a new language to this persecution, everything relating to previous events would in a very short time have been sunk in oblivion.
It is reasonable to suppose that what the Christians practised towards the Pagans, these practised in like manner upon their predecessors. And as the religions changed 2–3 times in 6,000 years, all memory of the things done before that time was lost; and if nevertheless some vestiges of it remain, they are regarded as fabulous, and are believed by no one; as is the case with the history of Diodorus Siculus, who gives an account of some 40 or 50,000 years, yet is generally looked upon as being mendacious, and I believe with justice.
As to causes produced by Heaven, they are such as destroy the human race, and reduce the inhabitants of some parts of the world to a very few in number; such as pestilence, famine, or inundations. Of this the latter are the most important, partly because they are most universal, and partly because the few that escape are chiefly ignorant mountaineers, who, having no knowledge of antiquity themselves, cannot transmit any to posterity. And should there be amongst those who escape any that have such knowledge, they conceal or pervert it in their own fashion, for the purpose of gaining influence and reputation; so that there remains to their successors only just so much as they were disposed to write, and no more. And that such inundations, pestilences, and famines occur cannot be doubted, both because all history is full of accounts of them, and because we see the effects of them in the oblivion of things, and also because it seems reasonable that they should occur.
This is a reasonable argument by Machiavelli: it is true that religions attempt to erase and recycle their predecessors and if only through neglect, assure their disappearance, and it is also true that occasional catastrophes like pandemics can depopulate regions & end civilizations (eg. the New World, or the Black Plague). Greco-Roman or Renaissance-era philosophers may have believed in vast mathematical and religious knowledge belonging to the Egyptians or ancient Greeks and that known philosophical schools were but the tattered scraps of the original Golden Age—yet, they were still wrong. There were no civilizations 50,000 years ago, and more than enough survives of pre-Christian or pre-Islamic civilizations for us to understand them.
The claims of gradualism and evolution—that the observed geography and biology arose only incrementally over hypothesized periods of millions or even billions of years, such lengths being necessary to account for the human-observed short-term stasis of species or geography—would have doubtless struck them as even more absurd. Who could accept a theory like “after billions of years, humans evolved, but then nothing of any importance happened for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, until then everything started happening in the past 10,000 years at an ever-accelerating pace”? Nevertheless… (Here we have a situation similar to that of heliocentrism and the problem of the parallax or Olber’s paradox, of being wrong for the right reasons. Connell2011 notes the irony: particularly in the Renaissance, these theories of an eternal world emerged as part of the awakening of critical thought about theological dogmas like Creationism—but it was the dogmas which were right about the universe being of a finite age.)
From our perspective, the pace of progress in Newton’s day—never mind Lucretius 1,700 years prior—was agonizingly slow and near-invisible, but to Newton and his contemporaries, it must have appeared rapid, even more rapid than for Lucretius.
This offers a little twist on the “Singularity” idea: apparently people have always been able to see progress as rapid in the right time periods, and they are not wrong to! We would not be too impressed at several centuries with merely some shipbuilding improvements or a long philosophy poem written in Latin, and we are only modestly impressed by needles or printing presses. Human history, starting sometime in the Neolithic, is a giant exponential, which just keeps going up. What seemed startlingly rapid at one point may seem agonizingly slow viewed from a later standpoint.