Lucretius' Prescience

Nearly 2100 years ago—a generation or two before Jesus was born—a Roman poet created an astounding work of art and science. Although it was regarded at the time as an achingly beautiful poem, it was also a prescient description of the workings of this universe—literally a scientific treatise that would require nearly 2000 years to prove its veracity. The Roman author of the work was Titus Lucretius, and he titled it De rerum natura in Latin, which translates to On the Nature of Things. It’s an extensive work, running some 7400 lines of verse, grouped into six books.

Lucretius based his insights on earlier Greek schools of thought, some of which taught that everything in the universe is made of invisible building blocks, which they called atoms, from the Greek word atomos, which means “indivisible.” The notion of the existence of atoms had originated over 400 years before Lucretius came along. It began with ancient Greeks such as Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. These atomistic ideas competed with several other theories of matter, but eventually faded; losing out to the Greek schools headed by more wealthy and aristocratic scholars—particularly Aristotle. In addition, the concepts promulgated by Aristotle and his cohorts fit more comfortably with religious teachings of the time, and then were embraced by the Christian Church, after it came to power.

Lucretius expanded upon the teachings of the early Greek atomists and incorporated several other ideas, laying out an astoundingly accurate description of the physical world, long before humans had the scientific instruments to prove the truth of his writings.

Science has historically developed its understanding of how the universe behaves in two contrasting ways: via intuition and by experimentation (as well as by some combination of the two). Those who made intuitive discoveries usually puzzled over some natural phenomenon for a lengthy period, before an insight suddenly came to them. Einstein brooded about relativity for years—nearly losing his mundane job because of his daydreaming—and then the elegant answers suddenly came to him, almost like in a dream. Isaac Newton had escaped London’s black plague and for months sat scribbling safely at his country desk, before realizations came to him of the nature of forces and their effects on bodies.

Both of these men’s insights were expressed through elegant descriptions and mathematics. It was many years before other scientists could conduct the necessary experiments that could verify their theories—either because the necessary instruments had not yet been invented or no one had even conceived of such experiments.

The second principle way of scientific exploration is by experimentation. With instruments in hand, an experiment is conducted, that explores some aspect of the natural world, and often leads to some new understanding of how nature works.

What is astounding about Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things is that he was two millennia ahead of his time—rather than just a couple of decades, as in Einstein’s case. It fascinates me that, strictly through mental effort, Lucretius and his cohorts could have had such profound insight, so far ahead of their time. How could they have anticipated that everything in the universe is composed of endless combinations of tiny building blocks that were far beyond their ability to see or touch? Not only that, but Lucretius also anticipated evolution (1800 years before Darwin!) and expounded a philosophy that touched on spiritual matters. His thoughts in these areas are amazingly modern in tone.

A just-published book by Stephan Greenblatt (The Swerve) describes how Lucretius’ book barely escaped being lost to history; it was remarkably discovered in a German monastery some 1500 years after he had penned it. His insights had lain dormant until the 15^th century, and, when rediscovered, played a major role in fueling the scientific achievements of the Renaissance, and giving modern science its kick-start.

Why had Lucretius’ prescient ideas not become the foundation of scientific understanding during his time? Primarily because they clashed with the philosophical and religious beliefs that came to prominence in the centuries after the early flourishing Greek culture. For centuries—up to and throughout the so-called dark ages—the Western world based its views of the natural world on dogma that stifled scientific discovery.

More on Lucretius’ insights next time…