The Ether, sense organ of the Divine
Newton proposed the ether to address action-at-a-distance concerns, particularly how gravity could act instantaneously across a vacuum.The ether (or aether) was a hypothetical medium thought to permeate space, explaining phenomena like light propagation and gravitational forces before modern physics.
Newton was a religious man, like many men in his era. In the General Scholium to Principia, Newton described space as the "sensorium of God" (Latin: sensorium Dei), implying God perceives and interacts with the universe through space itself.
- The term "sensorium" likens space to a divine sensory organ, allowing God omnipresence and omnipotence in maintaining cosmic order.
Newton's ether serves dual roles: as a physical explanation for forces like gravity and as a theological construct allowing God to interact with the cosmos. The ether as a "sense organ of the Divine" means it's the means through God perceives and acts upon the universe, maintaining order and harmony according to divine will.
- In Opticks (Query 28 and others), Newton speculated the ether might transmit gravitational and other forces (e.g., electricity).
- The ether was envisioned as a subtle, invisible medium enabling physical interactions while potentially explaining cosmic order and stability.
A famous deabte centering around this concept:
The Leibniz-Clarke debate (1715–1716) was a seminal intellectual exchange between German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and English theologian Samuel Clarke (representing Isaac Newton’s views). It centered on fundamental questions about space, time, God’s role in the universe, and the nature of reality.
Sir Isaac Newton says that space is an organ which God makes use of to perceive things by. But if God stands in need of any organ to perceive things by, it will follow that they do not depend altogether on him, nor were produced by him. (Clarke and Leibniz 1717: L 1: 1–3)
Leibniz's arguments: space and time are relational, not absolute. They are the relations between objects and events. If there were no objects, there would be no space. Similarly for time. Also, he criticized Newton's view of God's intervention, saying it implies the universe is imperfect, requiring fixes. Clarke/Newton's view was that space and time are real entities, independent of objects. God exists in space and time, which are his "sensorium." Also, Clarke argued that God's ongoing involvement is necessary for the universe's stability.
Leibniz used the Principle of Sufficient Reason, saying everything must have a reason. If space were absolute, there's no reason for the universe to be placed here rather than there, which is absurd. Clarke countered with the idea that God's will is sufficient reason.
Leibniz’s Shift Argument
- Leibniz: If space is absolute, God could shift the entire universe with no observable effect → violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason (no rational basis for such a choice).
- Clarke’s Reply: God’s will alone is sufficient reason; absolute space reflects His infinite nature and omnipresence.
Divine Perfection
- Leibniz: A perfect God would create a self-sufficient universe needing no fixes (e.g., planetary adjustments).
- Clarke: God’s freedom allows continuous action (e.g., gravity as divine agency), emphasizing His omnipotence.
Relational Time
- Leibniz: Time exists only as the order of events → no events = no time.
- Clarke: Time flows uniformly (absolute "duration"), independent of events → reflects God’s eternal presence.
