Editing Giordano Bruno (section)

==Cosmology==
===Contemporary cosmological beliefs===
{{See also|Celestial spheres#History}}
[[File:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Illuminated illustration of the Ptolemaic geocentric conception of the universe. The outermost text reads "The heavenly empire, dwelling of God and all the elect."]]
In the first half of the 15th century, [[Nicholas of Cusa]] challenged the then widely accepted philosophies of [[Aristotelianism]], envisioning instead an infinite universe whose center was everywhere and circumference nowhere, and moreover teeming with countless stars.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Nicholas of Cusa on learned ignorance : a translation and an appraisal of De docta ignorantia|last=Hopkins|first=Jasper|publisher=A.J. Benning Press|year=1985|isbn=978-0938060307|edition= 2nd|location=Minneapolis|pages=89–98|oclc=12781538}}</ref> He also predicted that neither were the rotational orbits circular nor were their movements uniform.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Certeau|first1=Michel De|last2=Porter|first2=Catherine|date=1987|title=The Gaze Nicholas of Cusa|journal=Diacritics|volume=17|issue=3|pages= 15|doi=10.2307/464833|issn=0300-7162|jstor=464833}}</ref>

In the second half of the 16th century, the theories of Copernicus (1473–1543) began diffusing through Europe. Copernicus conserved the idea of planets fixed to solid spheres, but considered the apparent motion of the stars to be an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis; he also preserved the notion of an immobile center, but it was the Sun rather than the Earth. Copernicus also argued the Earth was a planet orbiting the Sun once every year. However he maintained the [[Ptolemaic model|Ptolemaic hypothesis]] that the orbits of the planets were composed of perfect circles—[[deferents]] and [[epicycles]]—and that the stars were fixed on a stationary outer sphere.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Koyré|first=Alexandre|date=1943|title=NICOLAS COPERNICUS|journal=Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America|volume=1|pages=705–730}}</ref>

Despite the widespread publication of Copernicus' work ''[[De revolutionibus orbium coelestium]]'', during Bruno's time most educated Catholics subscribed to the Aristotelian [[geocentrism|geocentric]] view that the Earth was the [[History of the Center of the Universe|center of the universe]], and that all heavenly bodies revolved around it.<ref>{{cite book|last=Blackwell|first=Richard|title=Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible|date=1991|publisher=University of Notre Dame Press|location=Notre Dame|isbn=978-0268010249|page=25|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MHnwAAAAMAAJ}}</ref> The ultimate limit of the universe was the ''primum mobile'', whose diurnal rotation was conferred upon it by a [[transcendence (religion)|transcendental]] God, not part of the universe (although, as the [[Empyrean|kingdom of heaven]], [[Celestial spheres|adjacent to it]]<ref>See e.g. [[Celestial spheres#mediaviewer/File:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|Cosmography by Peter Apian, Antwerp 1539]] and its outer sphere</ref>), a motionless [[Cosmological argument|prime mover]] and [[first cause]]. The fixed stars were part of this celestial sphere, all at the same fixed distance from the immobile Earth at the center of the sphere. [[Ptolemy]] had numbered these at 1,022, grouped into 48 [[constellation]]s. The [[planet]]s were each fixed to a transparent sphere.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Russell|first=Henry Norris|date=1931|title=Tidying Up the Constellations|journal=Scientific American|volume=144|issue=6|pages=380–381|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0631-380|issn=0036-8733|bibcode=1931SciAm.144..380R}}</ref>

Few [[astronomer]]s of Bruno's time accepted [[Copernican heliocentrism|Copernicus's heliocentric model]]. Among those who did were the Germans [[Michael Maestlin]] (1550–1631), [[Christoph Rothmann]], [[Johannes Kepler]] (1571–1630); the Englishman [[Thomas Digges]] (c. 1546–1595), author of ''A Perfit Description of the Caelestial Orbes''; and the Italian [[Galileo Galilei]] (1564–1642).

===Cosmological claims===
{{main|Heliocentrism}}
In 1584, Bruno published two important philosophical dialogues (''La Cena de le Ceneri'' and ''De l'infinito universo et mondi'') in which he argued against the planetary spheres ([[Christoph Rothmann]] did the same in 1586 as did [[Tycho Brahe]] in 1587) and affirmed the Copernican principle.

In particular, to support the Copernican view and oppose the objection according to which the motion of the Earth would be perceived by means of the motion of winds, clouds etc., in ''La Cena de le Ceneri'' Bruno anticipates some of the arguments of Galilei on the relativity principle.<ref>{{Citation|last = [[Alessandro De Angelis (astrophysicist)|Alessandro De Angelis]] and Catarina Espirito Santo|year = 2015|title = The contribution of Giordano Bruno to the principle of relativity|url = http://www.narit.or.th/en/files/2015JAHHvol18/2015JAHH...18..241D.pdf|journal = Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage|volume = 18|issue = 3|pages = 241–248| doi=10.3724/SP.J.1440-2807.2015.03.02 |arxiv = 1504.01604|bibcode = 2015JAHH...18..241D| s2cid=118420438 |access-date = 19 January 2016|archive-date = 26 January 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160126194011/http://www.narit.or.th/en/files/2015JAHHvol18/2015JAHH...18..241D.pdf|url-status = dead}}</ref> Note that he also uses the example now known as [[Galileo's ship]].

<blockquote>Theophilus  – [...] air through which the clouds and winds move are parts of the Earth, [...] to mean under the name of Earth the whole machinery and the entire animated part, which consists of dissimilar parts; so that the rivers, the rocks, the seas, the whole vaporous and turbulent air, which is enclosed within the highest mountains, should belong to the Earth as its members, just as the air [does] in the lungs and in other cavities of animals by which they breathe, widen their arteries, and other similar effects necessary for life are performed. The clouds, too, move through accidents in the body of the Earth and are in its bowels as are the waters. [...] With the Earth move [...] all things that are on the Earth. If, therefore, from a point outside the Earth something were thrown upon the Earth, it would lose, because of the latter's motion, its straightness as would be seen on the ship [...] moving along a river, if someone on point C of the riverbank were to throw a stone along a straight line, and would see the stone miss its target by the amount of the velocity of the ship's motion.  But if someone were placed high on the mast of that ship, move as it may however fast, he would not miss his target at all, so that the stone or some other heavy thing thrown downward would not come along a straight line from the point E which is at the top of the mast, or cage, to the point D which is at the bottom of the mast, or at some point in the bowels and body of the ship. Thus, if from the point D to the point E someone who is inside the ship would throw a stone straight up, it would return to the bottom along the same line however far the ship moved, provided it was not subject to any pitch and roll."<ref>Giordano Bruno, Teofilo, in La Cena de le Ceneri, "Third Dialogue", (1584), ed. and trans. by S.L. Jaki (1975).</ref></blockquote>

Bruno's infinite universe was filled with a substance—a "pure air", [[Aether (classical element)|aether]], or ''spiritus''—that offered no resistance to the heavenly bodies which, in Bruno's view, rather than being fixed, moved under their own [[Impetus (mechanics)|impetus]] (momentum). Most dramatically, he completely abandoned the idea of a [[hierarchy|hierarchical]] universe.

<blockquote>The universe is then one, infinite, immobile... It is not capable of comprehension and therefore is endless and limitless, and to that extent infinite and indeterminable, and consequently immobile.<ref>Giordano Bruno, Teofilo, in Cause, Principle, and Unity, "Fifth Dialogue", (1588), ed. and trans. by Jack Lindsay (1962).</ref></blockquote>

Bruno's cosmology distinguishes between "suns" which produce their own light and heat, and have other bodies moving around them; and "earths" which move around suns and receive light and heat from them.<ref name="Bruno-1584">{{cite book
 |last        = Bruno
 |first       = Giordano
 |year        = 1584
 |title       = On the infinite universe and worlds
 |chapter     = Third Dialogue
 |chapter-url = http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/brunoiuw3.htm
 |url-status  = dead
 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120427091405/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/brunoiuw3.htm
 |archive-date = 27 April 2012
 |df          = dmy-all
}}</ref> Bruno suggested that some, if not all, of the objects classically known as [[fixed stars]] are in fact suns.<ref name="Bruno-1584"/> According to astrophysicist [[Steven Soter]], he was the first person to grasp that "stars are other suns with their own planets."<ref>{{cite web
 |last = Soter
 |first = Steven
 |author-link = Steven Soter
 |title = The Cosmos of Giordano Bruno
 |website = Discover
 |date = 13 March 2014
 |url = http://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/defending-giordano-bruno-a-response-from-the-co-writer-of-cosmos
 |access-date = 26 July 2021  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625083552if_/http://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/defending-giordano-bruno-a-response-from-the-co-writer-of-cosmos
 |archive-date=25 June 2020 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Bruno wrote that other worlds "have no less virtue nor a nature different from that of our Earth" and, like Earth, "contain animals and inhabitants".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/brunoiuw0.htm#IUW0III |title=Giordano Bruno: On the Infinite Universe and Worlds (De l'Infinito Universo et Mondi) Introductory Epistle: Argument of the Third Dialogue |access-date=4 October 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013120648/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/brunoiuw0.htm#IUW0III |archive-date=13 October 2014  }}</ref>

During the late 16th century, and throughout the 17th century, Bruno's ideas were held up for ridicule, debate, or inspiration. [[Margaret Cavendish]], for example, wrote an entire series of poems against "atoms" and "infinite worlds" in ''Poems and Fancies'' in 1664. Bruno's true, if partial, vindication would have to wait for the implications and impact of [[Isaac Newton|Newtonian]] cosmology.

Bruno's overall contribution to the birth of modern science is still controversial. Some scholars follow Frances Yates in stressing the importance of Bruno's ideas about the universe being infinite and lacking geocentric structure as a crucial crossing point between the old and the new. Others see in Bruno's idea of multiple worlds instantiating the infinite possibilities of a pristine, indivisible One,<ref>{{cite book
|editor-last=Hetherington
|editor-first=Norriss S.
|title=Encyclopedia of Cosmology (Routledge Revivals): Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology
|date=2014
|orig-year=1993
|publisher=Routledge
|isbn=978-1317677666
|page=419
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EP9QAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA419|access-date=29 March 2015}} Bruno (from the mouth of his character Philotheo) in his ''De l'infinito universo et mondi'' (1584) claims that "innumerable celestial bodies, stars, globes, suns and earths may be sensibly perceived therein by us and an infinite number of them may be inferred by our own reason."</ref> a forerunner of [[Hugh Everett|Everett]]'s [[many-worlds interpretation]] of quantum mechanics.<ref>[[Max Tegmark]], [https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20081217134224/http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.pdf Parallel Universes], 2003</ref>

While many academics note Bruno's theological position as [[pantheism]], several have described it as [[pandeism]], and some also as [[panentheism]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NY0zAQAAQBAJ&q=bruno+panentheistic&pg=PA72|title=Panentheism Across the World's Traditions|last1=Biernacki|first1=Loriliai|last2=Clayton|first2=Philip|date=2014|publisher=OUP USA|isbn=9780199989898|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/modernfaiththoug0000thie|url-access=registration|page=[https://archive.org/details/modernfaiththoug0000thie/page/120 120]|quote=bruno panentheistic.|title=Modern Faith and Thought|last=Thielicke|first=Helmut|date=November 1990|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=9780802826725|language=en}}</ref> Physicist and philosopher [[Max Bernhard Weinstein]] in his ''Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis'' ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature"), wrote that the theological model of [[pandeism]] was strongly expressed in the teachings of Bruno, especially with respect to the vision of a deity for which "the concept of God is not separated from that of the universe."<ref>Max Bernhard Weinsten, ''Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis'' ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Perception of Nature") (1910), p. 321: "Also darf man vielleicht glauben, daß das ganze System eine Erhebung des Physischen aus seiner Natur in das Göttliche ist oder eine Durchstrahlung des Physischen durch das Göttliche; beides eine Art Pandeismus. Und so zeigt sich auch der Begriff Gottes von dem des Universums nicht getrennt; Gott ist naturierende Natur, Weltseele, Weltkraft. Da Bruno durchaus ablehnt, gegen die Religion zu lehren, so hat man solche Angaben wohl umgekehrt zu verstehen: Weltkraft, Weltseele, naturierende Natur, Universum sind in Gott. Gott ist Kraft der Weltkraft, Seele der Weltseele, Natur der Natur, Eins des Universums. Bruno spricht ja auch von mehreren Teilen der universellen Vernunft, des Urvermögens und der Urwirklichkeit. Und damit hängt zusammen, daß für ihn die Welt unendlich ist und ohne Anfang und Ende; sie ist in demselben Sinne allumfassend wie Gott. Aber nicht ganz wie Gott. Gott sei in allem und im einzelnen allumfassend, die Welt jedoch wohl in allem, aber nicht im einzelnen, da sie ja Teile in sich zuläßt."</ref> However, [[Otto Kern]] takes exception to what he considers Weinstein's overbroad assertions that Bruno, as well as other historical philosophers such as [[John Scotus Eriugena]], [[Nicholas of Cusa]], [[Moses Mendelssohn|Mendelssohn]], and [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing|Lessing]], were pandeists or leaned towards pandeism.<ref>Review of ''Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis'' ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Perception of Nature") in [[Emil Schürer]], [[Adolf von Harnack]], editors, ''Theologische Literaturzeitung'' ("Theological Literature Journal"), Volume 35, column 827 (1910): "Dem Verfasser hat anscheinend die Einteilung: religiöse, rationale und naturwissenschaftlich fundierte Weltanschauungen vorgeschwebt; er hat sie dann aber seinem Material gegenüber schwer durchführbar gefunden und durch die mitgeteilte ersetzt, die das Prinzip der Einteilung nur noch dunkel durchschimmern läßt. Damit hängt wohl auch das vom Verfasser gebildete unschöne griechisch-lateinische Mischwort des 'Pandeismus' zusammen. Nach S. 228 versteht er darunter im Unterschied von dem mehr metaphysisch gearteten Pantheismus einen 'gesteigerten und vereinheitlichten Animismus', also eine populäre Art religiöser Weltdeutung. Prhagt man lieh dies ein, so erstaunt man über die weite Ausdehnung, die dem Begriff in der Folge gegeben wird. Nach S. 284 ist Scotus Erigena ein ganzer, nach S. 300 Anselm von Canterbury ein 'halber Pandeist'; aber auch bei Nikolaus Cusanus und Giordano Bruno, ja selbst bei Mendelssohn und Lessing wird eine Art von Pandeismus gefunden (S. 306. 321. 346.)." ''Translation'': "The author apparently intended to divide up religious, rational and scientifically based philosophies, but found his material overwhelming, resulting in an effort that can shine through the principle of classification only darkly. This probably is also the source of the unsightly Greek-Latin compound word, 'Pandeism.' At page 228, he understands the difference from the more metaphysical kind of pantheism, an enhanced unified animism that is a popular religious worldview. In remembering this borrowing, we were struck by the vast expanse given the term. According to page 284, Scotus Erigena is one entirely, at p. 300 Anselm of Canterbury is 'half Pandeist'; but also Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno, and even in Mendelssohn and Lessing a kind of Pandeism is found (p. 306 321 346.)".</ref> ''[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]]'' editor [[Corey S. Powell]] also described Bruno's [[cosmology]] as pandeistic, writing that it was "a tool for advancing an animist or Pandeist theology",<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/03/13/cosmos-giordano-bruno-response-steven-soter |last=Powell |first=Corey S. |title=Defending Giordano Bruno: A Response from the Co-Writer of 'Cosmos' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191116095835/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/03/13/cosmos-giordano-bruno-response-steven-soter/#.Uy-qafldUdl |archive-date=16 November 2019 |magazine=[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]] |date=March 13, 2014 |quote=Bruno imagines all planets and stars having souls (part of what he means by them all having the same "composition"), and he uses his cosmology as a tool for advancing an animist or Pandeist theology.}}</ref> and this assessment of Bruno as a pandeist was agreed with by science writer Michael Newton Keas,<ref>{{cite book|author=Michael Newton Keas|title=UNbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion|year=2019|pages=149–150}}</ref> and ''[[The Daily Beast]]'' writer David Sessions.<ref>David Sessions, "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/23/how-cosmos-bungles-the-history-of-religion-and-science.html How 'Cosmos' Bungles the History of Religion and Science]", ''[[The Daily Beast]]'', 03.23.14: "Bruno, for instance, was a 'pandeist', which is the belief that God had transformed himself into all matter and ceased to exist as a distinct entity in himself."</ref>